THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CONTEMPT CASE No.749 of 2019
Gorantla Sridhar, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged 32 years, R/o
Thimmarajupalem Village, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District,
State of Andhra Pradesh and another.
... Petitioners
Versus
Katta Jyoshtnna, working as Panchayat Secretary,
Thimmarajupalem Gram Panchayat, Thimmarajupalem,
Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District, State of Andhra Pradesh.
... Respondent
Counsel for the petitioners : K. Koutilya, learned counsel
Counsel for respondent : Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy,
Standing counsel
ORDER:
The above contempt case was filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 complaining about violating the order, dated 05.07.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8520 of 2019.
2. Petitioners filed the above writ petition seeking the following relief:
"... to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of 2 nd 2 respondent in not considering and dispose of the revision filed by the petitioners under Section 10 of AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and threatening to evict the petitioners from the land an extent of Ac.0.82 cents and Ac.1.84 cents in survey No.107/2 of Thimmarajupalem Vilalge, Parchur Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to consider and dispose of the Revision filed by the Petitioners ..."
3. The above writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 05.07.2019, the operative portion of which reads as follows:
"As the revision petition is still pending before respondent No.2, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the stay petition, filed along with revision, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be an order of status quo with regards physical possession till the disposal of the stay petition".
4. Contempt case was filed alleging that notwithstanding the order passed by this Court on 05.07.2019, the respondent/contemnor filed complaint on 26.08.2019 against the petitioner and his father alleging that the name board 3 erected on 22.08.2019, in the schedule property, was removed, part of the land was ploughed and Jowar seeds were planted. Basing on the said complaint, Police registered crime No.120 of 2019, dated 26.08.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 of IPC and respondent No.3 of PDPPA Act. Thereby, the respondent/contemnor violated the order of status quo granted by this Court.
5. Counter was filed on behalf of the respondent/contemnor. It was contended inter alia that the respondent is not aware of the order passed by this Court on 05.07.2019 and no such order was communicated to the respondent. When the respondent enquired on 26.08.2019, neither the petitioner nor his father informed the respondent about the order passed by this Court. After registration of crime and on coming to know about the order of status quo, immediately respondent filed criminal petition No.9332 of 2022 to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner and his father and, in fact, the same was allowed. C.C.No.46 of 2020 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parchur was quashed. While tendering 4 unconditional apology, it was further contended there is no willful disobedience on the part of the respondent. Hence, prayed the Court to close the contempt.
6. Heard both sides.
7. While discussing about willful disobedience of order of the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha1, held at para No.17, which reads thus:
17. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines "civil contempt" and it means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a court. "Wilful"
means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something 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 1 (2003) 11 SCC 1 5 be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary 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......"
8. In Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para Nos.12 and 15 held as under:
"12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is "wilful". The word "wilful" introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. "Wilful" means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a "bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely". Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly 2 (2014) 16 SCC 204 6 or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. "Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct."
15. It is well-settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act.
9. In the case on hand, as per the counter, on coming to know about the order of this Court, respondent immediately filed criminal petition to quash C.C.No.46 of 2020, arose out of crime No.120 of 2019. This instance makes it more than 7 discernable that there was no intentional or deliberate violation of order of this Court, on the part of the respondent.
10. Therefore, in view of the above and in the light of the above expressions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the backdrop of the settled law on the subject, this Court is of the opinion that respondent is not guilty of wilful disobedience of the Court's order.
11. Hence, this contempt case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this case, shall stand closed.
__________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date : 21.12.2022 ikn 8 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE No.749 of 2019 Date : 21.12.2022 ikn