Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 746 (AP)

Thota Mallikharjuna Rao v. M. N. Purnachandra Rao

2003-06-13

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2003
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents herein have violated the orders of this Court dated 3-10-2002 in wpmp No. 24025/2002 in WP No. 19105/2002. ( 2 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it is stated that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac. 4-47 cents in rs. Mo. 128/lb of North Valluru revenue village, Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna district. This land is stated to be the subject matter of the proceedings under the A. P. Land reforms (Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings) act, 1973 (for short the Act ) being cc. No. 874/v/75. Initially, the petitioners approached this Court in WP. No. 6546/92 alleging that they were sought to be dispossessed from their land without following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules made there under. The writ petition was allowed through orders dated 30-11-1995 and the concerned revenue authorities were directed to publish notices as required under Section 10 (6) of the Act and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the land Reforms Tribunal, Vijayawada, , issued fresh notices and through its order dated 27-4-2001 overruled the objections raised by the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, vhe petitioners carried the matter in appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal by filing LPA 6/2001. Through its order dated 16-4-2002, the Appellate Tribunal held that the correct procedure was not followed, possession of the land said to have been taken from the petitioners on 24-8-1981 is contrary to law and ultimately remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. ( 3 ) THE petitioners claimed that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the land throughout and certain private individuals including the 4th respondent herein were interfering with their possession. It is also their case that after remand, the notices were not being served on them and that the 1st respondent herein had forcibly obtained their signatures on blank papers. Exchange of notices oh the basis of these allegations ensued between the petitioners, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent on the other. It is also their case that after remand, the notices were not being served on them and that the 1st respondent herein had forcibly obtained their signatures on blank papers. Exchange of notices oh the basis of these allegations ensued between the petitioners, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent on the other. Feeling aggrieved by the acts and omissions in the proceedings that are pending before the Land Reforms tribunal, after remand, the petitioners filed wp No. 19105/2002 seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent herein in obtaining signatures and thumb impressions of the petitioners and harassing them in the matter of enjoyment of the land even after the orders of the Land Reforms tribunal, West Godavari, Eluru, as illegal and arbitrary and sought for direction to the 1 st respondent herein to return those papers. They also sought for a direction to the land Reforms Tribunal who was impleaded as the 1 st respondent in the writ petition, to consider the Interlocutory Applications filed by them in CC No. 874/v1975. They have filed WPMP No. 24025 of 2002 seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the lands referred to above. ( 4 ) THE writ petition was admitted on 3-10-2002 and it was directed that pending further orders, Status quo obtaining as on that day as regards possession of the petitioners over the land in RS No. 128/1/b of North Valluru village, Thotliavalluru mandal, Krishna District, over an extent of ac. 4. 47 cents shall be maintained. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they raised the crop in the land and harvested the same on 10th and 11th December 2002. It is stated that since the land was still wet, they have shifted the harvested crop to the land of the 7th petitioner to avoid damage. On the complaint said to have been made by the 4th respondent, one of the alleged lessees of the land, the 3rd respondent had taken the petitioners as well as one mr. Anjaneyulu, who is 86 years old, to thotlavalluru Police Station on 12-12-2002. They were detained on the Police Station on 13th also. On the basis of the request of the family members of the petitioners, their counsel one Mr. Anjaneyulu, who is 86 years old, to thotlavalluru Police Station on 12-12-2002. They were detained on the Police Station on 13th also. On the basis of the request of the family members of the petitioners, their counsel one Mr. JRV Subba Rao, had gone to the Police Station on 14-12-2002 together with necessary documents including the order of this Court. The 2nd respondent the assistant Commissioner of Police, is also said to be present. He is stated to have become furious and observed that he does not care for the orders of Status quo nor does he release the petitioners unless the proceedings pending before the Land reforms Tribunal and the High Court are withdrawn. ( 6 ) IT is stated that on 15th December, 2002 also, the Advocate pleaded for release of the petitioners, but the request was not acceded to. The detention continued, so much so on 16-12-2002, they were not even offered food. It is alleged that on 17-12-2002, respondents 1 to 3 have asked the detained petitioners as to what they have decided about the withdrawal of the cases. When the petitioners expressed their inability to withdraw the cases, the respondent No. 2 is said to have become furious and kicked the 4th petitioner by scolding him in the name of his caste. It is alleged that the papers shown to respondents 2 and 3 were torn away. On 18-12-2002, the petitioners claim that they were permitted to be supplied food by their relations. On 19-12-2002, they were produced before the Court of VI Metropolitan magistrate, Vijayawada, implicating them in cr. No. 99 of 2002 for the offence under SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short the SC and ST Act ). The 2nd respondent implicated the Advocate sri JRV Subba Rao, in that case. He in turn filed Crl. P. No. 6070/2002 before this Court for quashing the proceedings against him. This Court has stayed all further proceedings including his arrest. The petitioners ultimately complain that despite the orders of, Status quo, the 1 st respondents have confined them in the Police Station and wrongfully implicated them in the false cases, only on the allegation that they have trespassed into the land in question. ( 7 ) ALL the respondents filed counter affidavits. The petitioners ultimately complain that despite the orders of, Status quo, the 1 st respondents have confined them in the Police Station and wrongfully implicated them in the false cases, only on the allegation that they have trespassed into the land in question. ( 7 ) ALL the respondents filed counter affidavits. Respondents 2 and 3 have taken a preliminary objection stating that since they are not parties to the writ petition or wpmp, they cannot be alleged to have committed contempt of the orders of this court. ( 8 ) THE I st respondent, in his counter affidavit, narrated the sequence of events that led to the remand of the matter by the land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. According to him, the revenue records disclose that the petitioners were not in possession and as such the violation of the orders or this court does not arise. He stated that he gave his statement before the 2nd respondent, during the course of his investigation and it is on the basis of the records he stated that the petitioners are not in possession of the land in question. ( 9 ) IN his counter-affidavit, the 2nd respondent stated inter alia that the 4th respondent had complained on 14-12-2002 to the 3rd respondent, of the acts of trespass said to have been committed by the petitioners. The 3rd respondent, in turn, had registered Cr. No. 99/2002 under Sections 447, 427, 379, 506 read with 114 of IPC as well as Section 3 (v) of SC and ST Act. Since the investigation for the offence under the SC and st Act is to be undertaken by a Sub- divisional Police Officer, the 2nd respondent has undertaken the investigation. He stated that during the course of his investigation he found that the petitioners were not in possession of the land. He denied the petitioners having approached him or the 3rd respondent with the orders of this Court, at any point of time. According to him, he has undertaken the investigation and it was only on 19-12-2002 that the petitioners 1,4, 8 and one Mr. Anjaneyulu (A1 to A4) have surrendered before him and immediately they were produced before the court. It is also contended that he has recorded the statement of the 1st respondent herein as LW. According to him, he has undertaken the investigation and it was only on 19-12-2002 that the petitioners 1,4, 8 and one Mr. Anjaneyulu (A1 to A4) have surrendered before him and immediately they were produced before the court. It is also contended that he has recorded the statement of the 1st respondent herein as LW. 18 and on the basis of the same, he arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners have no right to enter the land in question. ( 10 ) THE 3rd respondent stated that on 14-12-2002, the 4th respondent came to the police Station complaining that petitioners 1, 4,8 and one Mr. Anjaneyulu have trespassed into her land and have taken away the harvested crop. He had recorded her statement and registered Cr. No. 99/2002 under various Sections referred to above. He denied the various allegations as to the arrest and confinement of the petitioners, the abuses given to them, learning away the orders of this Court learing etc. ( 11 ) THE 4th respondent, in her counter affidavit, states that she has been given 25 cents of land in RS No. 128/1 B, on eksal lease. She contends that when the petitioners have taken away her crop, she complained to the 3rd respondent, who in turn had registered case under the relevant provisions of law. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Durga Prasad, submits that the petitioners were in possession of the land in question. It is his case that the only basis on which the interference with the possession of the petitioners was being made from time to time was the alleged taking of possession on 24-8-1981 and once the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal held that the same was not tenable, the 4th respondent, or for that matter any other person, did not have any right to interfere with the possession over the land in question. He submits that though respondents 2, 3 and 4 are not parties to the writ petition, the Contempt Case is maintainable against them, inasmuch as they have blatantly violated the orders of this Court. According to him, if the respondents entertained any doubt as to the effect of Status quo, the only course open to them was either to drive the 4th respondent to seek appropriate direction or clarification from this Court or for themselves to approach this Court with necessary applications. According to him, if the respondents entertained any doubt as to the effect of Status quo, the only course open to them was either to drive the 4th respondent to seek appropriate direction or clarification from this Court or for themselves to approach this Court with necessary applications. He submits that the 2nd respondent had acted in a high handed and despotic manner, taking law into his hands. It is his case that the 2nd respondent had not only violated the orders of this Court, but also deliberately misled this Court by swearing in false statements in the affidavits, particularly, as regards surrender, lack of knowledge about-the orders of this Court, etc. ( 13 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the 1st respondent, submits that the 1st respondent had only clarified the position that emerged from the records and he did not commit any contempt. ( 14 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents 2 and 3, submits that on the basis of a complaint submitted by the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent had registered CC No. 99/2002 and since the accused therein were alleged to have committed the offence under the sc and ST Act, the investigation was undertaken by the 2nd respondent. He submits that the 2nd respondent was not aware of the orders of this Court when he initially took up the investigation. On coming to know about the orders of this Court, he recorded the statement of the 1st respondent dated 17-12-2002. The learned Government pleader vehemently contended that the 2nd and 3rd respondents did not cause the arrest, much less, confinement on 12-12-2002. It is his case that accused 1 to 4 in CC. No. 99/ 2002 have voluntarily surrendered before the 2nd respondent and thereafter they were produced before the Court. ( 15 ) THE 4th respondent appeared before this Court. She expressed her inability to engage an advocate. This Court requested sri J. Kanakaiah, the learned Advocate, to represent the 4th respondent. He readily agreed and rendered effective assistance to the Court. Sri Kanakaiah, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, submits that the 4th respondent had raised the crop over an extent of 25 cents and since the same was taken away, she complained to the 1st respondent on 13-12-2002 and on his directions approached the 3rd respondent on the next day. Sri Kanakaiah, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, submits that the 4th respondent had raised the crop over an extent of 25 cents and since the same was taken away, she complained to the 1st respondent on 13-12-2002 and on his directions approached the 3rd respondent on the next day. It is his case that the 4th espondent has not committed the acts of contempt; since what all she has done was that she lodged a complaint before the concerned police. ( 16 ) BEFORE dealing with the question as to whether the respondents have committed contempt of the order of this Court at all, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, as regards maintainability of the contempt case/, needs to be considered. It is a matter of record that respondents 2, 3 and 4 are not parties to the writ petition. Respondent No. 1 herein figured as respondent No. 2 in the writ petition as well as WPMP. Normally, it is the parties to the proceedings that are under obligation to respect and honour the order. However, if persons who are not parties to the proceedings before the Court act in such a way as to render it nugatory, they cannot escape from the liability to be proceeded against, simply on the grounds that they were not parties to the proceedings. This principle applies with greater vigor as regards public officials, who are supposed to act in aid and assistance of the orders of the Court. ( 17 ) THERE may be slight distinction between the instances where the concerned public officials do not render the required assistance as is expected of them, on the one hand, and the instances where the officials act in a manner defeating the very purport and ambit of the order of the Court. In the instances falling into the latter category, it is imperative that such obstructions are properly dealt with by the Court. Failure to do so, would render the very adjudicator process, particularly, in public law, a wasteful exercise. Therefore, the objection raised on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 cannot be sustained. If, on facts, it is held that they have resorted to the acts, which have the affect of scuttling the order of this Court, they can certainly be proceeded against. Therefore, the objection raised on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 cannot be sustained. If, on facts, it is held that they have resorted to the acts, which have the affect of scuttling the order of this Court, they can certainly be proceeded against. Therefore, it remains to be seen as to whether the respondents have committed any acts of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether they figured as parties to the writ petition or not. ( 18 ) IN WP No. 19105/2002, the petitioners claimed a comprehensive relief based on their grievances vis-a-vis the proceedings pending before the Land reforms Tribunal, Vijayawada. We are not concerned with the merits or otherwise of the claims of the petitioners in the writ petition. Taking into account the contentions raised in the writ petition, this Court passed an order on 3-10-2002 directing maintenance of status quo as regards possession of the petitioners over the land in question. On the strength of the order, the petitioners were entitled not to be interfered with, if they were in possession of the land in question, as on 3-10-2002. ( 19 ) IT is not uncommon that where the parties approach the Courts with the set of allegations, orders of status quo are passed pending further orders and awaiting response from the aggrieved parties. The necessity to pass such orders arise mostly on account of the fact that at the initial stage of the proceedings, in some cases, it is difficult to take a view, even prima facie, that the possession of the property in question is with any particular party to the proceedings. Such an order, however, does not enable the persons who are parties or not to the proceedings, to assume for themselves the role of an adjudicator and record a finding as to who exactly is in possession. Invariably and without exception, it is for the Courts that passed such order to record a finding in the event of there being any dispute. No other agency, except that Court itself, has a right to record a finding on such a question. If the dispute as to possession is so contentious between the rival contenders in writ proceedings before the High Court, instances are not lacking where findings are called for from Subordinate Courts. No other agency, except that Court itself, has a right to record a finding on such a question. If the dispute as to possession is so contentious between the rival contenders in writ proceedings before the High Court, instances are not lacking where findings are called for from Subordinate Courts. If the affected parties, or persons offering to come to their rescue, assume to themselves the power to adjudicate upon, orders can be flouted with impunity. ( 20 ) THE petitioners raised several contentions in the writ petition. One of their main contentions was that despite the fact that the Land Reforms Appellate tribunal held that the alleged taking of possession of the land under the provisions of the Act on 24-8-1981 was not tenable, their possession was being interfered with. The Appellate Tribunal held as under: "hence the observation made by the primary Tribunal that the possession has been taken on 24-8-1991 is not tenable as the possession has to be taken only after issue of notice under Section 10 (3) of the act. Hence, this finding is decided accordingly. " inasmuch as this Court intended to know the subsequent events, after due notice in the writ petition, an order of Status quo was passed in WPMP No. 24025/2002. ( 21 ) THE petitioners contend that they were in possession and raised the crop, which became ready for harvest in december 2002. According to them, they harvested the crop on 10th and 11th December 2002 and shifted the same to the land of the 7th petitioner. In their affidavit, the petitioners have stated the various instances that have taken place ever since 12th December 2002, in the hands of respondents 1 to 3, on the complaint said to have been made by respondent No. 4. ( 22 ) THE respondents 1 to 3 have denied the allegations made by the petitioners. Before recording a finding on the basis of these allegations and denials, it needs to be observed that on their own showing, the respondents 2 and 3 have, undertaken an exercise of recording a finding as to whether the petitioners are in possession of the land, as on the date of the orders of this Court. It was totally impermissible for them to have undertaken such an exercise. It was totally impermissible for them to have undertaken such an exercise. In his counter affidavit, the 1st respondent has not only indicated his stand as regards the possession, but also has admitted of having tendered his opinion to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has also stated in his counter affidavit, that to ascertain as to whether the petitioners were entitled to remain in possession at all, he sought for the opinion of his Legal advisor as well as that of the 1st respondent. He based his entire proceedings against the petitioners, on the statement of the 1st respondent as LW. 18 in CC. No. 99 of 2002. ( 23 ) THERE are instances where the parties to a dispute approach the revenue officials and place reliance upon the orders passed by the Courts in their favour. In such cases, once the officials know that the matter is in the seisin of a court, they should put off their hands and require the parties to work out their remedies in the pending proceedings. Under no circumstances, the officials can arrogate to themselves any power or authority to interpret the proceedings before the Court, much less, meddle with the orders passed in the pending proceedings. ( 24 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Home contended that the 2nd respondent has proceeded with the investigation from 14th onwards and that he was not aware of the orders of status quo granted by this Court. In fact the 2nd respondent in his counter-affidavit stated as under: "the contention of the petitioners that their counsel Sri JRV Subba Rao explained the civil cases pending and also shown the records available with him, including, the copies of the status quo order of this hon ble Court dt. 3-10-2002 and the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, eluru dated 16-4-2002 and requested us to release them from the confinement, is incorrect and baseless. " ( 25 ) HE submits that it was in this context that the 2nd respondent has verified the matter with the 1 st respondent and it was only on the basis of the opinion tendered by him that he came to the prima facie conclusion that the petitioners have trespassed into the land in question. This contention of the learned GP for Home on behalf of the 2nd respondent is belied from the Case Diary maintained by the 2nd respondent. This contention of the learned GP for Home on behalf of the 2nd respondent is belied from the Case Diary maintained by the 2nd respondent. ( 26 ) THE 2nd respondent - examined the 1st respondent as LW. 18 on 17-12-2002. In his Case Diary dated 14-12-2002, relating to Cr. No. 99 of 2002, he wrote as under:"at about 10-30 p. m. , the accused Gummadi subba Rao appeared, before me in thotlavalluru PS and produced Xerox copy of High Court Writ Petition no. WPMP. No. 24025/2000 in WP. No. 19105/ 2002 dated 3-10-2002 with petitioners A1 to a4 and four others and respondents the land Reforms Tribunals-cum-Sub-Collector, vijayawada and the MRO, Thotlavalluru and the High Court issued the orders on the petition filed by the petitioners for the above land. Pending further orders Status quo obtaining as on today as regard to possession of the petitioners over the land in RS. No. 128/ib of North Valluru village, to an extent of Ac. 4. 47 cents shall be maintained. "these contradictions disclose that the 2nd respondent is trying to mislead the court. There are other indications to show that the deposition in the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent vis-a-vis the allegations made by the petitioners do not present the correct picture. ( 27 ) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 denied of having arrested or detained the petitioner any day prior to 19-12-2002. According to them, the four accused in Cr. No. 99/2002, three of whom are petitioners in this case, have surrendered before the 2nd respondent on 19-1-2-2002. At more places than one, they have stated so in their respective counter-affidavits. The genesis of registration of case against the petitioners is itself shrouded in mystery. The petitioners have categorically stated that they have been arrested by the 3rd respondent on 12-12-2002. Cr. No. 99/2002 is said to have been registered on the basis of a complaint made by the 4th respondent on 14-12-2002. She did not submit any written complaint. The 3rd respondent is said to have recorded her statement. The 4th respondent was concerned only with 25 cents of land. There were several other tenants. None of them complained. On the other hand, they have filed affidavits before this Court stating that they were never in possession. She did not submit any written complaint. The 3rd respondent is said to have recorded her statement. The 4th respondent was concerned only with 25 cents of land. There were several other tenants. None of them complained. On the other hand, they have filed affidavits before this Court stating that they were never in possession. The statement recorded by the 3rd respondent is to the following effect:"then 1 asked Gummadi Subba Rao as to why they are keeping the heap. Then he told us that we do not have any right to ask and that the cut paddy belongs to them. He also threatened that if we talk more, he will cut us and throw into the canal. Then we went to our land and found that the cut paddy was not there and it is piled in the neighbouring land. Due to fear, we returned back home. At that time the time is about 9-00 p. m" ( 28 ) THE only sentence that enabled the 3rd respondent to register crime against the accused in Cr. No. 99 of 2002 under the provisions of SC and ST Act is this: "as we are SCs, they dispossessed us and our properties. " ( 29 ) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 were present in the Court. When the 3rd respondent was asked as to how this statement constituted the basis for implicating the accused under the provisions of SC and ST, act, he categorically stated that he did so under the pressure from the 2nd respondent. There was neither any denial nor any clarification from the 2nd respondent in this regard. ( 30 ) THE sequence of events indicates that the 2nd respondent wanted the matter to bring under his control by implicating the accused in CC. No. 99/2002 under the provision of SC and ST Act. This conclusion of the Court is fortified from the fact that while in the original FIR, the names of petitioners 1, 4 and 8 and one anjaneyulu figured as accused 1 to 4, it is the 2nd respondent, who has implicated the Advocate Mr. JRV Subba Rao, who represented the petitioners, as A5. The basis for such implication, as evident from the Case Diary dated 14-10-2002, is this:"further, A1 to A3 being other than STs trespassed into the land of LWs. JRV Subba Rao, who represented the petitioners, as A5. The basis for such implication, as evident from the Case Diary dated 14-10-2002, is this:"further, A1 to A3 being other than STs trespassed into the land of LWs. l to 7 and others, stole the paddy crop with a view to dispossess them from the land. A4 who is SC community joined A1 to A4 in the commission of the offence. A5 being present at the spot actively instigated A1 to a-4 in the commission of the offence. "respondent No. 4 did not utter a word about the presence of A5 or instigation by him. The other lessees did not submit any complaint, oral or written, at all. If really a2 wanted to ascertain the matter or seek clarification and intended to undertake further inquiry only thereafter, it is not known as to how he jumped to the said conclusion. ( 31 ) AFTER examining the 1 st respondent on 17-12-2002, in his Case Diary, the 2nd respondent wrote as under: "in this case, the statements of M. R. O. clearly established the possession and enjoyment of L. Ws. 1 to 10 in the above land. The accused 1 to 4 at the instance of A. 5 trespassed into the land and shifted the paddy crop of L. Ws. 1 to 10 only to dispossess them in the guise of High Court orders. Further L. Ws. 1 to 7 are of STs while a1 to A3 are of BCs and A4 is of SC. A5 is an advocate who is other than SC. These five accused with pre-planned in order to dispossess LWs. 1 to 7 and others from the land have commftted the offence. I enquired for the accused and found them not available. I issued instructions to the SI to apprehend the accused and produce before me to arrest them in this case. Closed the CD for the day. Further c. D. Follows. " it has already been indicated that on 14th itself, the accused or at least one of them appeared before respondents 2 and 3. It is rather curious that despite the same, the 2nd respondent had instructed the 3rd respondent to apprehend them. ( 32 ) IN his Case Diary dated 19-12-2002, the 2nd respondent recorded as under:"investigation made into this case found prima facie evidence against all the accused. It is rather curious that despite the same, the 2nd respondent had instructed the 3rd respondent to apprehend them. ( 32 ) IN his Case Diary dated 19-12-2002, the 2nd respondent recorded as under:"investigation made into this case found prima facie evidence against all the accused. As such I arrested A1 to A4 on 19-12-2002 at 7 a. m. , at Thotlavalluru PS duly informing them of the grounds of arrest. Their arrest particulars were also communicated to their relatives in writing. A5 has not been traced. Enquiries are continued to trace him. The investigation into this case has been under progress. In the circumstances, it is requested that A1 to a4 may be remanded to judicial custody for a period of 15 days pending completion of further investigation and to lay charge sheet,"it is necessary to read this portion of the case Diary with the counter affidavits of respondents 2 and 3, wherein they have stated that they have not arrested petitioners 1, 4 and 8 and one Anjaneyulu at all, and in fact, the said accused have voluntarily surrendered themselves before the 2nd respondent. Not a word about surrender finds a place in the Case Diary. If in fact they have surrendered, the question of informing the grounds of arrest or communication of the arrest to the relatives does not arise. Having noticed this inconsistency, the 2nd respondent has cooked up a Case Diary of the same date, wherein it is shown that Al to A4 have surrendered before him. It reads as under: "this day on receipt of information about the present of the accused at their respective residences, I rushed to Thotlavalluru P. S. at 7 a. m. Little after my arrival to the Police station A1 to A4 surrendered before me. I arrested them at Thotlavalluru P. S. and questioned them about the offence. They denied the allegations and claimed that they have a right in the land. I informed them of the grounds of the arrest. I have also communicated the arrest particulars in writing to their relatives. The accused in custody complained of no ill treatment in the hands of Police. In this case, a5 has not been traced. Enquiries are being continued to trace him. Investigation into this case is under progress. The arrested accused are being produced in the Court under escort for remand pending completion of further investigation. The accused in custody complained of no ill treatment in the hands of Police. In this case, a5 has not been traced. Enquiries are being continued to trace him. Investigation into this case is under progress. The arrested accused are being produced in the Court under escort for remand pending completion of further investigation. " a reading of the two Case Diaries in relation to same stage of investigation on the same day discloses the mindset of the 2nd respondent. ( 33 ) SO far as the basis for proceedings against some of the petitioners, despite the order of Status quo, is concerned, the 2nd respondent submits that it is the statement given by the 1st respondent that had driven him to that conclusion. The conduct of the 1st respondent is despicable and objectionable. In his counter-affidavit, he has almost taken the stand of a rival contender for the land. He has referred to various proceedings relating to the land, which is the subject matter of the proceedings, but not to the order of the land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The matter is pending before the Land Reforms tribunal, Vijayawada as well as this Court. Despite the same, not only he has been harassing the petitioners, but had gone to the extent of giving a statement before the 2nd respondent. That provided a handle to the 2nd respondent to further harass the petitioners. Having noticed the lack of the basis with the stand taken by him in the counter-affidavit, he came forward with the additional counter-affidavit stating that his opinion was based on the records. The role played by the 1st respondent in this matter is reprehensible. He had assumed the role to himself over and above the statutory authorities as well as this Court. He has grossly misused his position and subjected the petitioners to untold misery. He has gone to the extent of alleging that the affidavits filed by the various tenants are false. In fact, the 4th respondent, who is the complainant, did not choose to contradict the affidavits of other tenants. ( 34 ) AT more places than one, in his counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent claimed that he did not visit Thotlavalluru on 17-12-2002 at all. The 3rd respondent supported the. same in his counter-affidavit. In fact, the 4th respondent, who is the complainant, did not choose to contradict the affidavits of other tenants. ( 34 ) AT more places than one, in his counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent claimed that he did not visit Thotlavalluru on 17-12-2002 at all. The 3rd respondent supported the. same in his counter-affidavit. The allegation of the petitioners was that on 17-12-2002, respondents 1, 2 and 3 were present in the Police Station and there they asked them (petitioners 1,4 and 8) as to what they have decided about withdrawal of the cases. When the petitioners 1,4 and 8 answered in the negative, the 2nd respondent is alleged to have kicked the 4th petitioner, torn out the papers and abused him in filthy language in the name of the caste. The 4th petitioner himself belongs to SC community. To over come this, the plea of alibi was taken by the 2nd respondent. He did not realize that in his Case Diary dated 17-12-2002, he lias categorically stated that in the further investigation of the accused, he has examined the 1st respondent. This was at Thotlavallur. The 1st respondent in Para 14 of his counter-affidavit stated that on 17-12-2002, he was busy in conducting survey of sand reaches in river Krishna, attending general body meeting of Mandal Parishad and participation in public meeting of Nyaya Sadassu. He did not say anything about his having been examined by the 2nd respondent in relation to CC. No. 99/2002. ( 35 ) THEREFORE, the conclusion is inevitable that respondents 1 to 3 have misled this Court. The discussion undertaken above discloses that the allegations made by the petitioners stand proved and that respondents 1 to 3 are guilty of contempt of court. ( 36 ) THE investigation under SC/st Act is required to be undertaken only by such sub-Divisional Police Officer as are notified by the Government. So much so, parameters are laid down in the Rules framed under the Act to take the experience, conduct and attitude of such officers into consideration. The reason is that the Act is prone to be misused. The 2nd respondent had proved the apprehension of the Parliament to be true. It is not known as to whether he has been empowered by the Government to undertake investigation under the Act. The reason is that the Act is prone to be misused. The 2nd respondent had proved the apprehension of the Parliament to be true. It is not known as to whether he has been empowered by the Government to undertake investigation under the Act. However, the way in which he implicated petitioners 1, 4 and 8 and their Counsel, invoking the provisions of the SC/st Act, discloses that he has misused his powers by resorting to implicate the petitioners, only with a view to harass them. ( 37 ) THIS Court is, therefore, of the view that the 2nd respondent shall not be entitled to investigate the cases arising under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) act, for a period of two years. It is only after the Government reviews the case of the 2nd respondent as regards such authorization and passes appropriate orders, that he shall be entitled to discharge such functions. The Commissioner of Police, vijayawada, shall entrust the investigation of cases under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to another officer of the equal rank. ( 38 ) THIS observation is confined only to the disposal of this case. The sustainability or otherwise of the implication of the advocate Sri JRV Subba Rao needs to be dealt with in the Crl. P. No. 6070/2002 filed by him. ( 39 ) SO far as punishments to be imposed upon the respondents 1 to 3 are concerned, this Court was convinced that they deserve the same, to uphold the majesty of the Court. However, today the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the 1st respondent, submits that the I st respondent is due to retire very shortly, and that he did not have any adverse remarks throughout his career. Learned government Pleader for Home has filed affidavits for the respondents 2 and 3. The 2nd respondent has stated that he has earned more than 70 rewards and 9 meritorious service entries and was also awarded Police Seva Pathakam. The 3rd respondent stated in his affidavit that he never faced any contempt of case. Both of them pleaded for the indulgence of the court. Since the respondents 1 to 3 have tendered unconditional apologies and expressed their regrets for the acts and omissions on their part, this Court takes a lenient view and lets-off them by administering a warning. The 3rd respondent stated in his affidavit that he never faced any contempt of case. Both of them pleaded for the indulgence of the court. Since the respondents 1 to 3 have tendered unconditional apologies and expressed their regrets for the acts and omissions on their part, this Court takes a lenient view and lets-off them by administering a warning. Recurrence of such instances in future would be viewed seriously. ( 40 ) THE allegation against the 4th respondent is only that she has complained to the respondents 1 to 3. Therefore, she cannot be held guilty of contempt of court. ( 41 ) THE contempt case is accordingly closed.