27. In The District And Sessions ... vs . The
2022 Latest Caselaw 9542 AP

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND


                 CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021
                              IN
                CONTEMPT CASE NO.1309 OF 2020
                              IN
                WRIT PETITION NO.16647 OF 2020

ORDER:-

1.    This Contempt Case is initiated against the respondents

for their willful disobedience in complying the order of this

Court dated 30.11.2020 and for obstructing the

Constitutional functions of the Court.

2. In C.C.No.1309 of 2020, at the stage of admission, on

30.11.2020 this Court ordered notices to the respondents

therein and directed to post the contempt case on

14.12.2020. But, the C.C.No.1309 of 2020 is posted on

18.12.2020. On verification of the case record, it was found

that, the notices were dispatched by the Registry only on

17.12.2020 and contempt case was listed on 18.12.2020.

Considering the same, this Court is of the prima facie opinion

that the Registry did not comply the orders of this Court in

true spirit and they are obstructing the Constitutional DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

functions of this Court and accordingly, directed the Registrar

General to initiate contempt proceedings against the officers

of the Registry who are responsible for not implementing the

orders dated 30.11.2020 of this Court and submit "Action

Taken Report", on the next date of hearing i.e. on 18.01.2021.

3. The Registrar General placed "Action Taken Report"

before this Court on 18.01.2021 wherein, it is stated that,

C.C.No.77 of 2021 was registered against the respondents

herein for not complying with the order dated 30.11.2020 of

this Court. On 22.01.2021, after hearing the learned Advocate

General and upon perusal of the record, notices were issued

to the respondents.

4. All the respondents filed counter affidavits and

additional counter affidavits.

5. Heard learned Advocate General and Sri T. Sreedhar,

learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and

Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.2. Respondent Nos.3 to 11 personally present

before the Court and submitted their contentions.

DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

6. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.1, it is

averred that, he has been discharging his duties as Registrar

(Judicial) of this Court since 30.04.2020. Till then, he has

been discharging his duties with utmost diligence and

commitment in accordance with the established practices,

High Court Rules, Standing Orders, Roster Directions and

instructions/directions issued by the Hon'ble Judges from

time to time. He always strived to uphold the majesty of the

Court in the eye of the public and Advocates by discharging

his duties and functions in accordance with law. It is averred

that, he strongly believed that any Orders of the Court should

be complied with scrupulously.

7. It is further averred that, the Registrar General by letter

dated 18.01.2021 has directed to initiate contempt

proceedings against the respondents in the present contempt

case for causing delay in complying with the order dated

30.11.2020 passed by this Court, including Respondent No.1.

He contends that, he has no personal knowledge about the

contempt case in C.C.No.1309 of 2020 until the Court passed DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

the order to initiate Contempt proceedings. It is also

contended that, the report of the Registrar General placed

before this Court identifying the officers responsible for non-

compliance of the order dated 29.12.2020 of this Court is not

furnished to him. Therefore, he averred that, he had no

information, muchless, any knowledge about C.C.No.1309 of

2020 and the order passed by the Court in the said case and

there is no possibility of any disobedience on his part in the

matter where he has no knowledge.

8. He further averred that, he believed that, this Court is

concerned about the functioning of the Registry and has

initiated steps for enhancing its functioning, for which he

would be greatly obliged, although he is not responsible for

the present contempt in any manner. In the said counter

affidavit, he also recorded the relevant provisions of the High

Court Standing Orders which are applicable to the judicial

section and the procedure to be followed by them. He also

contends that, the Standing Orders do not mandate the

Registrar (Judicial) to either secure knowledge or perform any

administrative functions in cases which are handled in the DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

routine course by the concerned sections day-to-day. Finally,

it is submitted that, he is deeply anguished for the

inconvenience that has been caused to this Court and he

tendered his unconditional apology.

9. Respondent No.2 filed his counter affidavit, wherein, he

contends that, he has been discharging his duties as

Registrar (Protocol) by office order in ROC No.306/2020-Estt.,

dated 20.07.2020, whereunder, he has been directed to

attend the work in the judicial wing of the Registry and he

shall function in coordination under the guidance of the

Registrar (Judicial). He has been attending to the works in the

Judicial Wing. He has not been assigned any specific section

or specific function in the Judicial Wing of the Registry and

he does not have independent control or supervision over any

section in the Judicial Wing. He tendered apology and sought

pardon of the Court for the inconvenience caused to the Court

in not properly complying with the order dated 30.11.2020 in

C.C.No.1309 of 2020 and prayed the Court to exonerate him

and discharge him from the charges of contempt.

DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

10. It is the contention of Respondent No.3 that, in the

Special Cell Section, for dispatching more than 2,000 order

copies daily by post, the addresses of the respondents have to

be written on the covers and acknowledgments. Presently,

only one Assistant Section Officer and one Record Assistant

are working. To dispatch the order copies daily, atleast ten

staff members are required. He made repeated requests to the

Registrar (Judicial) to depute atleast two or three office

subordinates to avoid the delay in dispatch of the order copies

to the respondents in time, but in vain.

11. Respondent No.4 contends that, her duty is to prepare

the registered postal covers received by the Special Cell

Section. The preparation includes scribing addresses to the

parties and pasting the covers and stamping. After preparing

the covers with acknowledgment, she has to note down the

case numbers in the book and after that, she has to dispatch

the same to the Current Section. She submits that, she has

been doing the work without any assistance. She further

contends that, no delay was caused on her part in sending

the covers to the Current Section.

DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

12. Respondent No.5 contends that, she dispatched the

case bundles on the same day without delay. There is no

delay on her part in implementing the orders of this Court.

13. Respondent No.6 contends that the contempt case

bundle was received in the Special Cell on 30.11.2020 and

allotted for drafting to him on 01.12.2020 and he has drafted

on the same day. The same was approved by the Approval

Officer on 03.12.2020. Hence, he contends that, there is no

delay on his part in complying with the order of this Court.

14. Respondent No.7 contends that, he has been attending

to the work of Office Subordinate in the Special Cell Section

and he is attending to the work whichever is entrusted to him

by the Section Officer. He is not aware of the case bundle in

C.C.No.1309 of 2020 and he never obstructed the functions of

the Court.

15. Respondent No.8 contends that, he is working as Office

Subordinate and he is not aware of the case bundle in

C.C.No.1309 of 2020. He is not aware of the dispatching the

notices and he never obstructed the functioning of the Court.

DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

16. Respondent No.9 contends that, though there was a

posting direction to list C.C.Nos.1267, 1281 & 1309 of 2020

on 14.12.2020, but these cases were not listed on 14.12.2020

and listed on 18.12.2020, because of the reason that these

contempt case files were received in O.S. Section on

15.12.2020 from Special Cell Section after dispatching of

notices with a delay of one day and the Section In-charge of

O.S. Section has fed the date of posting as 18.12.2020 and

sent them to the concerned Posting Assistant on 17.12.2020

and listed on 18.12.2020. He was not informed by the

concerned officer of the O.S. Section or the Posting Assistant

in the Posting Section about the date of posting of the said

cases. Due to that reason, those cases are not listed as per

the directions of the Court.

17. Respondent No.10 contends that, case file of

C.C.No.1309 of 2020 was received from O.S. Section on

17.12.2020 and the O.S. Section fed the matter to 18.12.2020

in the computer. Accordingly, the case was posted on

18.12.2020. He contends that the notices in the contempt DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

case will be sent by Special Cell and therefore, he is not aware

about dispatching of the notices in the contempt case.

18. Respondent No.11 contends that, the contempt case

bundle was sent to the Special Cell for drafting and

dispatching of notices on 30.11.2020 by the Court Officer and

the same was received by the Special Cell on 01.12.2020 and

notices were dispatched on 10.12.2020 and the case was sent

to the O.S. Section on 15.12.2020. But, the same was sent to

Posting Section on 17.12.2020 at evening hours which were

listed on 18.12.2020. He contends that the Court ordered to

list this contempt case for hearing on 14.12.2020 while

notices were ordered in the said case. Much to his surprise

and chagrin, the orders of the Hon'ble Court were not duly

followed. He contends that, he has no role or part in the delay

caused. He received case bundle only on 15.12.2020. He

tendered his unconditional apology for the delay caused.

19. The respondents have filed affidavits asserting that they

have not committed any act in disobedience of the order of the

Court and the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.

DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

20. This Court gave anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned Advocate General and

learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and the averments

made in the affidavits filed by the Respondent Nos.3 to 11.

21. It is settled law that, any order or direction issued by

the Court has to be complied within true spirit in the interest

of justice. In the opinion of this Court, directing the Registry

to issue notices to the respondents and giving direction to list

the case on a particular date is an order passed by this Court.

The concerned officers of the High Court Registry have to

strictly implement the same.

22. In the High Court Standing Orders (Revised), 2004, the

functions to be discharged by the various officers i.e.

Registrar (Judicial) to Office Assistant are prescribed. As per

S.O.1-4, the Registrar (Judicial) has over all control and

supervision over the sections under his control. He shall

monitor the day-to-day Sittings of Hon'ble Judges, Pendencies

of Decree-drafting & Translations, Despatch of Lower Court-

Records, etc., and Stayed Matters, in particular, compliance DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

of copy applications (C.D's) and prompt dispatch of urgent

orders. The Registrar (Judicial) shall watch piling up of files in

any of the Sections under his control and immediate steps are

to be taken for their disposal. The Registrar (Judicial) shall

also make frequent visits to the Sections under his control,

since it is mostly his performance that has a direct

impact on the image of the Institution. He must readily

respond to the complaints of the Advocates and cause the

defects rectified promptly. He must take every step to

facilitate the smooth functioning of Courts.

23. On careful examination of the duties to be discharged

by the Registrar (Judicial), it is very important to note that

the performance of the Registrar (Judicial) has a direct

impact on the image of the institution. In view of the

functions to be discharged by the Registrar (Judicial), as

mentioned at Standing Order No.1-4, the Respondent No.1

can't contend that he is not responsible for the non-

implementation of the Court directions by the subordinate

officers working under his control and supervision in the

Judicial Wing.

DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

24. Though it is contended by the remaining respondents

that, due to lack of sufficient staff or there is no any fault on

their part in implementing the orders of the Court within the

time stipulated and on consideration of overall facts, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents failed

to implement the directions of this Court in true spirit.

25. As per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,

"civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment,

decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or

wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

26. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar

and Ors1 the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held

that for holding a person to have committed contempt, it

must be shown that there was wilful disobedience of the

judgment or order of the Court. But it was indicated that even

negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt.

AIR 1999 SC 3215 DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

27. In The District and Sessions Judge vs. The

Executive Engineer, R & B2, the Division Bench of the

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted

hereunder:

"8. One of the well settled principles of law is that it is not only disobedience of the judicial order of the Court or interference with the judicial proceedings, which constitutes Contempt of Court, interference in exercise of administrative power by the Court also is a Contempt of Court."

28. The prefatory remarks of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar3, as extracted hereunder

would well project the importance of the issue under

consideration in this suo motu contempt case:

"1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.

1996 (2) ALD Cri 844

AIR 1995 SC 1795 DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.

At Para Nos. 7 & 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as

extracted hereunder:

"7. Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates court's order, but also to keep the stream of justice clear and pure (which was highlighted more than two and half centuries ago by Lord Hardwicke, L.C. in St. James Evening Post case, 1742-2 Atk 469) so that the parties who approach the courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples"

The purpose of contempt jurisdiction was summarised

as below by Lord Morris in Attorney General v. Times

Newspapers 1974 A.C. 273 at page 302:

DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

"In an ordered community courts are established for the pacific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be imperiled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for their own dignity: it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognised courts of the land are so flouted and their authority wanes and is supplanted."

8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, pre-variation and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that

(truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts.

DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

29. In Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India4, the

Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held as extracted

hereunder:

"Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The Government departments are no exception to it."

30. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Ashok Khot 5,

the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as

extracted hereunder:

"It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs."

(2012) 1 SCC 273

(2006) 5 SCC 1 DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

31. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and

Ors6, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that

the Contempt of Courts Act has been introduced in the

statute-book for securing confidence of people in the

administration of justice. If an order passed by a competent

Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more

than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order

would amount to contempt of Court. There can be no laxity in

such a situation because otherwise the Court orders would

become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own

understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible

defence.

32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai

and others vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and others 7

held that, punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed

a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken.

At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the

2002 CriLJ 1814

AIR 2008 SC 3016 DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of

Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme

step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due

compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required

to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in

wielding the potent weapon of contempt.

33. In T. Girija Kumari vs. K. Venkateswara Rao8, the

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted

hereunder:

"9. Contempt jurisdiction is sparingly exercised by the Courts because it is an extraordinary jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is invoked usually not with the object of punishing a contemnor, but for protecting the dignity and authority of the Court.

10. Obedience of the orders of the Courts is foremost and sacred for maintenance of rule of law. Disobedience of the orders strikes at the very roots of rule of law and shakes the foundation on which the judicial system rests. Tolerance to disobedience is not in the interest of the judicial system because it will

MANU/AP/0136/2012 DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

lose the confidence of those who have succeeded in the Courts.

23. An order passed by a Court is sacrosanct and should be implemented. Implementation of an order cannot be refused under any pretext, so long as it remains in force and is not eclipsed or set aside in the hierarchy of remedies. Even if there is some difficulty in implementing the order, parties should approach the Court for appropriate clarifications. Otherwise, it would amount to disobedience to the Court."

34. In the present case, this Court in C.C.No.1309 of 2020

ordered notices to the respondents therein and directed to

post the contempt case on 14.12.2020. Admittedly, the

notices are issued by the Registry only on 17.12.2020 and

contempt case is listed on 18.12.2020, as such, it has to be

construed as "wilful disobedience" of the directions of this

Court. Even it is "negligence and carelessness", it may

amount to contempt, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors

(1st supra).

DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

35. It is well settled law that, the Rule of Law is the

foundation of a democratic society and Judiciary is the

guardian of Rule of Law. The officers/employees working in

the Judiciary shall discharge their duties properly and

effectively. They shall comply/obey the orders/directions

issued by the Courts in true spirit. All are equal before law.

The officers and employees who/we working in the Courts,

may be subordinates to the Court on the administrative side.

But, on Judicial side, they are equal to all others and they

have to comply orders of the Court with more cautious,

vigilant and alert. It is their primary duty to uphold the

dignity of Courts and Majesty of Law. They have to ensure

strict compliance of the orders/directions for proper

functioning of the Court and to dispense with the Justice to

the litigant public and for effective administration of justice.

In our view, as and when this Court is taking stringent action

against the persons, whoever they may be and however high

they may be for non-implementation of Court orders or

violation of Court orders, to uphold the Majesty of the Court

and to render Justice to the people; it is the first and foremost DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

duty of the officers and employees of the Courts to obey and

comply the orders of the Court, or otherwise, there is no

exception to them.

36. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and as there is truth in the contentions of the

respondents that, sufficient staff are not there in the Registry

to discharge their functions properly and considering the

unconditional apologies tendered by the respondents in their

affidavit, this Court, taking a lenient view, intends to close

this contempt case with a direction to the respondents to be

more careful in implementing the directions of this Court in

future in true spirit.

37. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed.

38. It is made it clear that the observations of this Court, as

stated supra, would not have any negative bearing against

any respondent.

39. Before parting with this order, this Court intends to

place on record its observations noticed while dealing this DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

case, with regard to the difficulties of the employees working

in the High Court Registry and to express its opinion to set-

right the misdeeds which are causing inconvenience to the

Court, to the Advocate fraternity and to the public at large.

40. This Court is very conscious that the Hon'ble The Chief

Justice is the Head of the Judiciary with powers of

administration of the High Court and administration of justice

throughout the State.

41. It is an admitted fact that the High Court Registry is

working with less than 50% of the sanctioned strength. Every

employee is over-burdened for the lack of sufficient staff. Due

to bifurcation of the common High Court and establishment

of separate High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati with a

short notice and no minimum facilities are available to the

employees for transportation and lack of other basic

amenities required to discharge their duties properly and

peacefully and most of the employee's families are staying at

Hyderabad and they have to go every weekend to Hyderabad,

it appears, there is serious disturbance in their performance DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

in discharging their duties. This Court can't lost its sight with

regard to the filing of writ petition by the Andhra Pradesh

High Court Employees Association seeking direction against

the State Government Officers to provide basic amenities.

42. Besides this, this Court noticed monopoly of employees

working in the Judicial Wing/Sections. Though there are

different sections/different wings in the High Court Registry

viz., Estt. Sec. (Officers), Recruitment Cell, J.Spl. (Admn. &

Med.), Special Officer's Section, D Sec. (Budget & ExP.),

Computer Section, Protocol Section, J.Spl. (Telephones), etc.,

Most of the Sections are no way directly concerned with the

day-to-day Court functioning and issues concerned to the

Advocates, Advocate Clerks and Litigant Public.

43. Those sections working under the control and

supervision of the Registrar (Judicial) are only having direct

connection with the Court functioning, issues of the

Advocates, Advocate Clerks and Litigant Public. Due to this

reason only, in the Standing Orders, it is noted that, the

Registrar (Judicial) performance has a direct impact on the DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

institution. In My considered opinion, not only the

performance of the Registrar (Judicial), but also, the

performance of entire staff working in the Judicial

Wing/Sections has a direct impact on the institution. The

Court, Advocates, Advocate Clerks and Litigant Public are

facing problems/inconvenience in day-to-day affairs, due to

the monopoly of some of the employees working in the

Judicial Section/Judicial Wing.

44. Under these circumstances,

i. If, appropriate steps are taken to fill the vacancies of

sanctioned strength of employees in the Registry, within

time frame;

ii. If, required amenities are provided to the employees of

the Registry;

iii. If, 30% of the staff working in the Judicial Sections are

transferred to other Sections (other Wings of the High

Court Registry) every year, and the staff working in the

other Sections are posted in the Judicial Sections,

whereby, all employees of the High Court will get

experience to work in the judicial sections and monopoly DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.77 OF 2021

of some of the employees working in the Judicial Sections

will be vanished, and

iv. It will be useful to facilitate the smooth functioning of

the Court and to protect the public interest.

45. Registry is directed to place copy of this order before the

Hon'ble The Chief Justice for their Lordship's perusal.

_____________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date : 12.12.2022

BSS/SP