GOVINDASWAMI MUDALI Vs. SUBBA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt case is filed by the petitioner against respondents 1 to 7 complaining breach of an order of this Court, dt. 28-1-1985 in W.P-M.P. No. 998 of 1985 in W.P.No. 737/85.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the 1st respondent (Asistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor) appointed respondents 3 to 1 as non-hereditary trustees of an endowment. The petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Commissioner questioning the same. A caveat was filed before the Joint Commissioner who still granted stay. The respondents 3 to 7 then obtained suspension of the stay order from the Government, in further revision. In W.P.No. 17000/84, this Court earlier ordered status quo on 28-12-1984, to be maintained and ordered the Joint Commissioner to dispose of the matter finally. The Joint Commissioner who called for records, instead of disposing the main case, advanced the same and on 9-1-85 vacated the stay granted on 5-12-1984, even though the status quo orders of the High Court were in force. Against this order, the petitioner filed the present W.P.No. 737/85 on 25-1-1985 and obtained suspension thereof in W.P.M.P. No. 998/85 on 28-1-1985. This Court passed the orders after hearing Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy who filed caveat for respondents 3 to 7.

(3.) Meanwhile on 18-1-1985, the Assistant Commissioner had ordered that the 2nd respondent (Inspector) should swear respondents 3 to 7 at 11.00 a.m. on 29-1-1985 at Papanaidupet which is 18 k.m. from Tirupathi. The petitioner's counsel issued a private telegram in the noon on 28-1-1985 and also got a court telegram issued in the evening. The petitioner also personally took a copy of the court telegram with the seal of the High Court and proceeded by bus and reached the village, according to him, by about 10.00 a.m. on 29-1-1985 and claims to have informed the Inspector (2nd respondent) and respondents 3 to 7 well before 11.00 a.m. about the court's orders. But in spite of it, it is alleged, the 2nd respondent has sworn respondents 3 to 7 as non-hereditary trustees at 11 00 a.m. Thereby it is alleged that the respondents 2 to 7 have committed civil contempt of this Court's orders.