Naveen Kumar Agarwal vs K Kamala
2021 Latest Caselaw 4590 AP

  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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

AIR 2004 SC 105

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

C.C.No.2497 of 2018 dated 07.02.2019

(1970) 1 All ER 1079 at 1081

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

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

(1998) 4 SCC 409

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,

(2001) 1 SCC 516

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