IN RE: BANDARU MADHAVA NAIDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Principal District Judge, West Godavari, forwarded to the High Court the letter dated 25.08.2014 addressed by the Additional District Judge, Narsapur, to the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, relating to an incident that occurred on 15.08.2014 involving Sri Bandaru Madhava Naidu, MLA, Narsapur, who was stated to have abused the Additional District Judge, Narsapur, in connection with the removal of hawkers from the encroached road side on the western side of the Court complex. The Additional District Judge, Narsapur, addressed a separate letter in this regard on 28.08.2014 to the High Court. The Bar Association, Narsapur, also submitted a representation to the High Court on the issue. Thereupon, the Honble The Chief Justice directed the District Judge to enquire into the matter and report. Upon due enquiry, the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, submitted report dated 19.09.2014. An Office Note was then placed before the Honble The Chief Justice and the matter was directed to be placed before this Bench on the judicial side. This suo motu contempt case was accordingly registered.

(2.) APPEARANCE having been entered by the respondent/contemnor through learned counsel, upon notice; he also filed two affidavits putting forth his defence. Taking into account the gravity of the matter, this Court appointed Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel, as amicus curiae.

(3.) THE report dated 19.09.2014 submitted by the Principal District Judge, West Godavari, reflects as under: Push -carts of street -vendors in front of the western side compound wall of the Court complex at Narsapur were removed by the municipal authorities at the request of the Additional District Judge, Narsapur, prior to 15.08.2014. However, they again occupied the said area and this was noticed by the Additional District Judge and others after the flag hoisting on 15.08.2014. At that point of time, the respondent/contemnor came there with his followers on about twenty motor -cycles and he questioned how the push -carts/street -vendors could be removed without providing alternative accommodation to them. The members of the Bar Association, Narsapur, tried to convince the respondent/contemnor, informing him of the presence of the Additional District Judge, Narsapur, but he did not care for the same and questioned whether we were living in a dictatorship or democracy or British rule.