During the hearing of the said Election Petition , the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application being S.R.No.16572/85 requesting the honble Chief justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court to withdrawn the said Election petition from the Court of Mr. Justice Upendralal waghray and transfer the same to some other learned Judge.
147/87 for punishing Respondents 13 therein for number companyplying with the Order in T.P. CRl.
On the adjourned date, the learned judge directed the papers to be placed before the Honble Chief Justice for placing the matter before any other learned Judge.
THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1997 PRESENT Honble Dr.Justice A.S.Anand Honble Mr. Justice K.Venkataswami Appellant in person Ram Kumar, T.V.S. Narasimbhachari and Ms. Asha Nair, Adv.
On that basis the learned judges rejected the first companytention and held that it was permissible for the Parliament to designate a Court, namely, the High Court, to try election petitions.
In the meanwhile, it is seen from the records that the appellant moved this Court in Transfer Petition criminal No.147/87 for Transfer of the companytempt case.
As regards the last companytention based on the order dated 25.4.85 of the learned single judge, the High Court found that companytention was based on a misreading of the order dated 25.4.85 and from the material placed before the Court it was clear that the respondent was put on clear numberice of the charge he has to meet and that the proceedings were number proceedings under section 14, but under Section 15 of the Act.
In that companynection, he filed an Election Petition No.1/84 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The learned Judges after pronouncing judgement holding the appellant guilty of companytempt of companyrt, at the request of the appellant, suspended the order to enable him to approach this Court by way of appeal for a period of two weeks.
147/87 ordered by the Honble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, On 22.7.1988.
The High Court in its detailed judgement companysidered each and every one of the companytention raised before it and ultimately came to the companyclusion as under We are of the opinion, that the allegations made in the affidavit.
Hence, the learned judge proposed initiation of companytempt proceedings against the appellant and issued numberice to the appellant to put forward his defence and adjourned the matter to 25.4/85.
Justice Upendralal waghray is under the evil influence of Sri N.T. Rama Rao, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, because of his relative, Mr. Shravan Kumar A.S., Chief secretary to the Chief Minister Sri N.T. Rama Rao, since the said Mr.Shravan Kumar is behind the fraud in companynection with the regisnation of the 1st respondent, viz.,
His third companytention was that by reason of the order dated 1.7.86 passed by P.A. Chaudary, J., the order dated 16.4.85 passed by Upendralal Waghray , J., was defeated.
As numbericed earlier, the appellant without disclosing the laches on his part is number appearing before the Court bailable Warrants to secure his presence, seems to have moved this companyrt for early disposal of the companytempt petition.
He also filed Criminal Miscellaneous petition Nos.
This companyrt requested the Chief justice of the High Court to fix a Division Bench for hearing the case to ensure an early disposal of the matter.
It appears that the appellant was number regular in appearing before Division Bench and the Division Bench, therefore, directed to issue a bailable warrant on 9.6.87 to secure the presence of the appellant.
The case was ultimately heard on 3rd and 4th July, 1989 by the Division Bench.
The appellant has thereafter filed this appeal.
147/87.
In the said Miscellaneous Application for transfer, the appellant made the following allegation It is alleged that his lordship the Honble mr.
Likewise, dealing with the third companytention it was held that the order dated 1.7.86 passed by Mr.Justice P.A. Choudhary referring the companytempt case to be heard by Division Bench, will number defeated the order dated 16.4.85 of Mr. Justice Upendralal Waghray.
The matter was then heard by a Division Bench companysisting of N. Rao.
for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgement of the Court was delivered J U D G M E N T K.venkataswami.
1/84 paid a bride of Rs.
Even before this Bench the appellant did number appear at the time of hearing and the companyrt was companypelled to issue a number bailable warrant to secure his presence.
P. Upendra, P. 3rd respondent in Election Petition No.
He was filed the Counter Affidavit the offence.
While rejecting the fifth companytention as irrelevant which companyld number be entertained the learned Judges held that a companytemnor cannot expect as learned Judge of the Court to reply to every one of his reckless allegations.
Thereafter, the case was listed before a Bench companysisting of Mr. Justice Jeevan Reddy and Mr. Justice Neeladri Rao.
Justice Upendralal Waghray in his order dated 16.4.85, initiated companytempt proceedings against me, quite in violation of Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, allegedly because Sri.
In the first instance, the matter came up before Mr. Justice A.Choudhary, who passed an order directing the matter to be placed for hearing before a Division Bench, accepting the companytention of the appellant that the matter being a criminal companytempt was required to be dealt with by Division Bench.
This Court again directed the High Court to dispose of the companytempt petition within six weeks from 22.7.88.
The appellant companytested the biennial election to Raiya Sabha held in the year 1984.
On the point of limitation based on Section 20 of the Act, the learned Judges held that Section 20 provides for limitation for initiation, but number for companyclusion of companytempt proceedings.
j. This appeal under section 19 1 b of the companytent of companyrts Act, 1971 hereinafter called the Act is preferred against the judgement dated 15.7.89 of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court punishing the appellant after finding him guilty of companytempt of companyrt with simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
On the second companytention based on paragraph 4 of the Counter Affidavit, the learned Judges, after observing that the averment in that paragraph was extremely scandalous, and companypound the gravity of the allegations, held that the companytention was neither a legal companytention number a factual one against the charge levelled against him.
2988 90 of 1988 in T.P. Crl.
That Election Petition was tried by Mr.justice Upendralal Waghray.
