Mattem Venkateswarlu vs S V Nageswara Rao
2021 Latest Caselaw 5448 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   CONTEMPT CASE NO.628 OF 2019

ORDER:

This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the petitioner - T.Appa Rao to

punish the contemnors - respondents for wilful and deliberate

disobedience of the orders dated 10.10.2018 passed by this Court

in W.P.No.26807 of 2003.

The petitioner filed writ petition No.26807 of 2003 to declare

the order of respondent No.1 therein - Commissioner of

Endowments vide D.Dis.No.B3/45978/2001 dated 30.03.2001 and

the consequential seniority list as bad and arbitrary raising several

contentions. But the learned Judge of High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra

Pradesh issued the following direction.

"Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents ventilating his grievance within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with rules, within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs."

This order was passed on 10.10.2018. The petitioner

submitted a representation afresh on 27.11.2018. Four (4) weeks

time fixed by the learned Judge was expired on 27.12.2018. But

the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh

passed orders in Rc.No.A1/3538573/2020 on 21.08.2020 i.e. after

one year 9 months from the date of receipt of fresh representation

submitted by the petitioner. Though contemnor - respondent No.1

is under obligation to pass appropriate orders within four (4) weeks

from the date of representation, which expired on 27.12.2018, but

MSM,J cc_628_2019

no orders have been passed by respondent No.1. Hence, it is a

clear case of contempt and violation or wilful disobedience of the

order of the Court.

When the Court finds that the contemnor is guilty of

disobeying direction issued by this Court intentionally, the Court

can impose penalty against a person, who wilfully disobeyed the

order of this Court.

In the present case, this Court issued a direction to the

petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents

ventilating his grievance within one week from the date of receipt of

a copy of the order and on receipt of such representation, the

respondents are directed to consider the same and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with rules, within a period of four

weeks.

The petitioner submitted a representation afresh on

27.11.2018. Four (4) weeks time fixed by the learned Judge was

expired on 27.12.2018. But the Commissioner, Endowments

Department, Andhra Pradesh passed orders in

Rc.No.A1/3538573/2020 on 21.08.2020 i.e. after one year 9

months from the date of receipt of fresh representation submitted

by the petitioner. Though contemnor - respondent No.1 is under

obligation to pass appropriate orders within four (4) weeks from

the date of representation, which expired on 27.12.2018, but no

orders have been passed by respondent No.1.

In "Ashok Paper Kamgar Union and Others. v. Dharam

Godha And Others1" the Supreme Court examined the provision

of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 that defines the

AIR 2004 SC 105

MSM,J cc_628_2019

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

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".

C.C.No.2497 of 2018 dated 07.02.2019

(1970) 1 All ER 1079 at 1081

MSM,J cc_628_2019

Article 215 of the Constitution of India empowers every High

Court to punish any person for 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 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.

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 obstructor 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

MSM,J cc_628_2019

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

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.

In "Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. and Others4", 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.

In the present case, the petitioner submitted a

representation afresh on 27.11.2018. Four (4) weeks time fixed by

the learned Judge was expired on 27.12.2018. But the

Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh passed

orders in Rc.No.A1/3538573/2020 on 21.08.2020 i.e. after one

year 9 months from the date of receipt of fresh representation

submitted by the petitioner. Hence, it is a clear case of contempt.

(2001) 1 SCC 516

MSM,J cc_628_2019

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, if not exercised though circumstance

warrants, the Court will remain as paper tiger. Therefore I find that

respondent No.1 is guilty of contempt of court proceedings as she

deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court passed

in W.P.No.26807 of 2003. Consequently, respondent No.1 is liable

for punishment.

In the result, contempt case is allowed, sentencing

respondent No.1 herein - the Commissioner of Endowments, to

undergo imprisonment for a period of two (2) months and to pay

fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousands only), for violating the

order of this Court wilfully, within two weeks from the date of this

order. In default of payment of fine, respondent No.1/ the

Commissioner of Endowments shall undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of one month. The said amount of fine be borne by the

contemnor from his/her pocket, but not from the public

exchequer.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 23.12.2021 Ksp

After pronouncing the above order, learned counsel for

respondent No.1 - The Commissioner of Endowments requested

this Court to suspend the above order, so as to enable her to prefer

an appeal.

MSM,J cc_628_2019

At the request of the learned counsel for respondent No.1,

the above order is suspended for a period of one (1) week to prefer

an appeal, in case no appeal is preferred or no stay is granted by

the Appellate Court in the appeal, if any preferred, respondent

No.1/contemnor shall surrender before Registrar (Judicial), High

Court of Andhra Pradesh on 31.12.2021 before 05.00 p.m. to

undergo sentence.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23.12.2021 Ksp