THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CONTEMPT CASE NO.602 OF 2019
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the petitioner - Naveen Kumar Agarwal against Smt. K. Kamala, erstwhile Sub-Registrar, Sompeta, Srikakulam and Mr. Tavatayya, present Sub-Registrar, Sompeta, Srikakulam.
The petitioner filed W.P.No.43025 of 2018 claiming Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent therein in not considering the representation made by the petitioner dated 22.11.2018, in which he raised objections under Rule 58 and Rule 181 of the Rules framed under Andhra Pradesh Registration Act, requesting to hear the petitioner before registering the property admeasuring an extent of Ac.-12 cents (dry land) vide Patta No.249 in Sy.No.255/1, another extent of Ac.0-64 cents dry land vide Patta No.857 in Sy.No.255/3, another extent of Ac.0-02 cents dry land vide Patta No.2351 in Sy.No.220/6 of Jalantrasompeta Village, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District, total extent of Ac.1- 82 ½ cents and another extent of Ac.0-52 ½ cents dry land vide Patta No.235 in Sy.No.220/6 of Mogalikothuru Village as the persons intended to register the property are not the persons they profess to be and involving rights of minors, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents to hear the petitioner before proceeding with the registration of the above said property. 2
MSM,J CC No.602 of 2019 The grievance of the petitioner is that, he made a representation dated 22.11.2018 to the second respondent raising objections under Rule 58 and 161 of the Rules framed under Registration Act, but no action was taken on the representation of this petitioner.
This Court passed an order on 12.12.2018, directing the second respondent -Sub-Registrar, Sompeta, Srikakulam District to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.1.2018 in accordance with the Rules framed under Registration Act. But the second respondent did not pass any order on the representation of the petitioner dated 22.11.2018 and nothing is communicated to the petitioner till the date of filing the contempt case.
While the matter stood thus, Respondent Nos. 3,7,8 & 9 in W.P.No.43025 of 2018 executed Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney in March, 2019. Even at that time, the second respondent did not pass any order on the objections/representation dated 22.11.2018, as directed by this Court on 12.12.2018. Taking advantage of the above development in March, 2019, the unofficial respondents are contemplating to alienate the property. All these things are possible only because the second respondent is disobeying the orders of this Court on 12.12.2018 in W.P.No.43025 of 2018. Thus, the second respondent disobeyed order of this Court dated 12.12.2018 in W.P.No.43025 of 2018 wilfully and deliberately and it amounts to Contempt of Court Act and finally requested to take appropriate action against the contemnors.
3
MSM,J CC No.602 of 2019 First respondent- Smt. K. Kamala filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia contending that, the petitioner by suppressing the truth, filed W.P.No.43025 of 2018 and the present contempt case and that, in the present contempt case, the relief is sought only against the second respondent, however, the first respondent brought certain facts to the notice of this Court, for consideration.
The first respondent verified with the office staff of Sompeta, Srikakulam with regard to the particulars of the representation of the petitioner and came to know that the petitioner made two applications to the in-charge Joint-Sub Registrar/Senior Assistant, one on 31.10.2018 and another on 22.11.2018. Both the applications were received by the said in-charge Joint-Sub Registrar/Senior Assistant by name Ch. Govardhan Rao and he passed order on the earlier representation dated 31.10.2018 on the same date. Inspite of the same, he filed another representation on 22.1.2018 with same request and filed W.P.No.43025 of 2018 before this Court and obtained interim order on 12.12.2018.
It is contended that, the first respondent never received any representation from the petitioner and in fact the petitioner submitted the same to the Senior Assistant-cum-Sub-Registrar which was not brought to the notice of the first respondent at any point of time. The petitioner also did not bring to the notice of the first respondent about the orders passed by this Court on 12.12.2008 even after receipt of the order from the Court. Even, it is not the case of the petitioner that, after receipt of the order from 4 MSM,J CC No.602 of 2019 this Court, the petitioner approached the first respondent and submitted the same for compliance.
On 15.02.2019, one Mr. Kolla Parvateesam, resident of Srikakulam presented a document for registration as "Agreement to sell with possession" with deficit stamp duty, as such the petitioner registered the same as pending document bearing No.P25/2019 and subsequently on payment of stamp duty, the first respondent registered the same as document bearing No.421 of 2019 dated 23.02.2019 and subsequently, she was transferred to Pedagantayda, Visakhapatnam District on 04.07.2019.
It is contended that, the petitioner lost his case in O.S.No.2 of 2013 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam and preferred an appeal before this Court in A.S.No.750 of 2018 and being unsuccessful in obtaining an order from this Court, the petitioner opted to file representation by suppressing the truth and filed W.P.No.43025 of 2018.
It is further contended that, the first respondent never received any representation from the petitioner and in fact when the second respondent came to know about the orders of this Court in W.P.No.43025 of 2018 and when some of the defendants in O.S.No.2 of 2013 approached him and enquired about registration of the subject land, he issued notice to the petitioner requesting the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 23.12.2019 at 12.30 p.m, in pursuance of the orders of this Court on 12.12.2018. Inspite of the notice dated 23.12.2019, the petitioner did not appear and submitted a letter on 30.12.2019 requesting ten days 5 MSM,J CC No.602 of 2019 time for filing objections. The petitioner having knowledge about the endorsement dated 31.10.2018 made by In-charge Sub- Registrar-cum-Senior Assistant made second representation on 22.11.2018 with malafide intention and thereby, the first respondent is not liable for contempt.
It is further contended that, the first respondent did not disobey the orders of this Court wilfully and that, the representation could not be disposed of due to lack of knowledge about the orders of this Court, as well as representation of this petitioner, as the same was not brought to the notice of the first respondent by In-Charge Sub-Registrar-cum-Senior Assistant and that, she never violated orders of this Court and even no remarks in her entire service while discharging her duties and requested to dismiss the contempt case.
The second respondent - Sri S. Tavitayya, previous Sub- Registrar, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, filed a separate counter affidavit, denying material allegations almost reiterating the contentions urged by the first respondent. The second respondent also filed reply affidavit specifically stating that, by the date of passing order dated 12.12.2018 in W.P.No.43025 of 2018, he was working as Sub-Registrar, Kurupam, Vizianagaram District and took charge as Sub-Registrar, Sompeta on 06.06.2019. After reporting to duty, Respondent Nos. 3 to 9 approached the second respondent along with copy of decree and judgment in O.S.No.2 of 2013 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Sompeta, filed by the petitioner herein, his mother and sister against Respondent Nos. 3 to 9 for partition of plaint schedule properties into two equal 6 MSM,J CC No.602 of 2019 shares among them and to allot half share to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 and 4 by meats and bounds after converting the joint possession into separate possession with subsequent mesne profits where the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner and two others and enquired with regard to registration of the subject property. The second respondent had gone through the entire record pertaining to the subject property and came to know that an interim order dated 12.12.2018 in W.P.No.43025 of 2018 was passed by this Court and issued notice dated 23.12.2019 requesting him to appear before the second respondent on 23.12.2019 at 12:30 p.m for the purpose of hearing on his representation dated 22.11.2018, pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 12.12.2018 and served the said notice on the petitioner through office subordinate. The petitioner received the notice and endorsed on the said notice stating that he will appear before the second respondent on 28.12.2019, as he was leaving to Visakhaptnam on personal work. On 28.12.2019, without appearing before the second respondent, he submitted a letter dated 30.12.2019 requesting 10 days time for filing his objections. But, he has not filed any objections till date. Hence, the second respondent could not consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.11.2018 and requested to pass appropriate orders, in obedience to the directions of this Court. The second respondent contended that, the delay in complying with the orders of this Court is neither wilful nor wanton but tendered unconditional apology to this Court for the delay caused and finally requested to close the contempt case against the second respondent. 7
MSM,J CC No.602 of 2019 During hearing, Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the conduct of the second respondent directly amounts to serious violation of the order of this Court, intentionally and deliberately and failure to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, despite directions issued by this Court is a matter of serious concern and this Court cannot take lenient view against such officials who disobeyed the order of this Court and requested to pass appropriate order against Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 would submit that, the second respondent made sincere attempt to pass appropriate orders, but the petitioner did not turn up to the enquiry on the day fixed for hearing by the respondents. Thereafter, the second respondent was transferred and the first respondent took charge of the office and thereby, the order of this Court dated 12.12.2018 in W.P.No.43025 of 2018 could not be complied by either the second respondent or the first respondent and the delay was only due to reason beyond the control of the respondents and requested to close the contempt case against Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
As seen from the material on record, a clear direction was issued to the petitioner to dispose of the representation dated 22.11.2018 within the specified date, as directed by this Court on 12.12.2018 in W.P.No.43025 of 2018. Despite the direction issued by this Court the respondents/contemnors did not bother to dispose of the representation and it is a clear intentional violation of the direction issued by this Court and consequently the action of 8 MSM,J CC No.602 of 2019 the respondents prima facie indicates that they disobeyed the order of this Court wantonly, pleading lame excuses without any basis. Therefore, I find prima facie that the respondents have committed contempt within the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.
The Court can impose penalty against a person who wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. In the present case, a direction was issued to dispose of the representation of this petitioner in accordance with law, within specified time. But, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 did not obey the direction issued by this Court. The respondents pleaded that, though they made an attempt to dispose of the representation of this petitioner, the petitioner did not cooperate on one pretext or the other, while contending that it is not wilful disobedience.
In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union and Ors. vs Dharam Godha And Ors1, the Supreme Court examined the provision of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 that defines the term civil contempt and held that the term „Willful‟ under Section 2(b) means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something while the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the order of the Court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extra ordinary 1 AIR 2004 SC 105 9 MSM,J CC No.602 of 2019 effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
In A. Badhrachalam v. Dr. K. Sathyagopal2, the Madras High Court made an attempt to decide the issue as to what amounts to contempt where the contempt was filed beyond the limitation of one year. But the Court noted the principle laid down in Morris v. Crown Office3, where Lord Dening wrote that, "Of all the places where law and order must be maintained, it is here in these Courts. The Courts of Justice must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who strike at it, strike at the very foundations of our society." "To maintain Law and Order, the Judges have, and must have, power at once to deal with those who offend against it" " It is a great power - a power instantly to imprison a person without trial - but it is a necessary power".
Article 215 of the Constitution of India empowers every High Court to punish contempt of Court subordinate to it, but Contempt of Courts Act lays down how that power is to be exercised. Article 215 and provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act have to be read together. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has emphasized that Section 20 applies to civil and criminal contempts and would also apply to the contempt committed on the face of High Court or the Supreme Court or even Subordinate Courts. Where there is a limitation for initiation of proceedings of contempt under Section 20 of the 2 C.C.No.2497 of 2018 dated 07.02.2019 3 (1970) 1 All ER 1079 at 1081 10 MSM,J CC No.602 of 2019 Act, the Rules of Code provide that no notice shall be issued if more than one year has lapsed from the alleged act of contempt.
Thus, from the principles laid down in the above judgment referred supra, it is for the Court to implement its order, since it is the first place where the order is to be implemented, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of passing the order by this Court. In the present case, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 did not care for implementation of the direction issued by this Court and on the other hand, leisurely took up the proceedings and issued notices to the petitioner as directed by this Court to dispose of the representation, which indicates that Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in most casual manner, issued notices and did not take any steps to dispose of the representation.
The purpose of law of contempt is to protect the machinery of justice and the interests of the public in order to protect these dual interests, unwarranted interference with administration of justice must be prevented. The power to punish for contempt is conferred on Courts for two reasons. Firstly, that the Courts may be armed with the power to enforce their orders, Secondly, they may be able to punish obstruction to the administration of justice. To ensure these objectives, there are also constitutional provisions dealing with contempt of Courts, apart from Contempt of Courts Act. Under Article 215 of the Constitution of India a Court of record is a Court, the records of which are admitted to be evidentiary value and not to be questioned when produced before any Court. Such a Court enjoys a power to punish for contempt as its inherent jurisdiction. The impression created by the Court is 11 MSM,J CC No.602 of 2019 that even if Article 129 and 215 were not there in Constitution the contempt powers of Courts of record would have been preserved. However the High Courts have to exercise his powers keeping in mind Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act.
Thus, in view of the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and various High Courts, obviously the power is conferred upon the Courts under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, whatever to be exercised, keeping in mind the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In the present case, though the contempt is within limitation, but the violation is wilful or not is to be examined. However, as discussed above, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 caused substantial delay of more than eight months in taking up proceedings to comply with the direction issued by this Court. In such case, the Court cannot take liberal approach and stern action is to be taken against Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court, since they are conscious about the direction issued by this Court and pleading any amount of ignorance about the orders is not an excuse, being a public officer while discharging public duty. Therefore, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be punished appropriately, as held by the Apex Court in Bar Association v. Union of India4, where the Apex Court dwelled into the Constitutional power vested in it under Article 129 read with Article 142(2) of the Constitution of India and the power of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution to punish for contempt and held that, that no act of parliament can take away the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Record to punish for contempt and the Parliament‟s power of legislation on the subject 4 (1998) 4 SCC 409 12 MSM,J CC No.602 of 2019 cannot, therefore, be so exercised as to stultify the status and dignity of the Supreme Court and/or the High Courts, though such a legislation may serve as a guide for the determination of the nature of punishment which this court may impose in the case of established contempt.
In Sudhakar Prasad vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors5, the Supreme Court once again declared that the powers of contempt are inherent in nature and the provisions of the Constitution only recognize the said pre-existing situation. That the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are in addition to and not in derogation of Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution. The provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 cannot be used for limiting or regulating the exercise of jurisdiction contemplated by the said two Articles. The Apex Court also made further observation that, the High Court cannot create or assume power to inflict a new type of punishment other than the one recognized and accepted by Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Therefore, the person(s) who violated the order of this Court must be dealt with sternly by the Court for wilful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court. In the present case, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 even after receipt of order, kept quiet without taking any steps to dispose of the representation of this petitioner and issued notices after lapse of sufficient time i.e. eight months leisurely, which would indicate their casual approach towards the orders of this Court. Even after issuing notices, though petitioner sought time twice to submit his objections on the proposed action, 5 (2001) 1 SCC 516 13 MSM,J CC No.602 of 2019 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 did not pass any order. Therefore, I find that it is a fit case to impose appropriate penalty as permitted under law.
In the result, contempt case is disposed of, sentencing Respondent Nos.1 & 2/contemnors to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousands only) each, for violating the order of this Court wilfully, within two weeks from the date of this order. In default of payment of fine, the contemnors shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The said amount of fine be borne by the contemnors from their pocket, but not from the public exchequer.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:12.11.2021 Note: Issue copy by today b/o SP