.Kommu Babu, vs Sri Y V Subba Reddy,
2022 Latest Caselaw 9570 AP

                                           1




           THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                     Contempt Case No.1819 of 2022

ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed under Section 10 to 12 of

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents/

contemnors for Contempt of Court for willful and deliberate

disobedience in not continuing the orders passed by this

Court dated 13.04.2022 in W.P.No. 993 of 2011, which reads as

follows:

(i) the notification in Roc. No.E10/15204/2010, dated 18.01.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed.

(ii) Consequently, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners on the basis of their appointments vide proceedings No. DP1/189/DPP/2004, dated 20.06.2005.

2. Heard Mr. K.K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. S.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the respondents/ contemnors.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that

the petitioners submitted a representation dated 18.05.2022 duly

informing the orders of this Court dated 13.04.2022. But the

respondents did not take any action for regularization of the

services of the petitioners so far and failed to comply with the

orders of this Court willfully and deliberately. Hence this Contempt

Case came to be filed.

4. Per contra, the 2nd respondent, who is Executive Officer,

T.T.Devastanams, Tirupati filed counter-affidavit denying all

material averments made in the contempt affidavit and mainly

contended that as against the orders of this Court dated

13.04.2022 in W.P.No. 993 of 2011, the respondents preferred

Writ Appeal No. 614 of 2022 on 20.06.2022 before this Court,

which is pending. In view of pendency of said Appeal, the

respondents have not been complied with the order of this court. It

is further contended that this Court did not fix any time limit for

compliance of the orders dated 13.04.2022. Normally, under the

Writ Rules, if no time limit is fixed for implementation of any order

passed by this Court, it is stipulated that two months time will be

available for implementing any Court Order. Therefore two months

period available for implementation of the orders of this Court was

to expire on 13.06.2022. The Contempt Case was filed on

16.06.2022, which is within 3 days from the date of expiry of two

months period. The Executive Officer of T.T.D shall be the Chief

Administrative Officer as per Section 129 of the A.P.Charitable and

Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.

Therefore he is competent person to represent on behalf of the

TTD. The other respondents are not proper and necessary parties

in the writ petition itself. There are no allegations against the

respondents 1, 3 and 4 and that this Court by order dated

08.08.2022 deferred notices to them. Therefore, requested to

dismiss the Contempt Case.

5. During hearing learned Senior Standing Counsel for the

respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in "Modern Food Industries (India) Limited and Another

Vs. Sachidanand Dass and Another"1 wherein it was held as

follows:

"4. ........If, without considering the prayer for stay, obedience to the Single Judge's order was insisted upon at the pain of committal for contempt, the appellants may find, as has now happened, the very purpose of appeal and the prayer for interlocutory stay infructuous. It is true that a mere filing of an appeal and an application for stay do not by themselves absolve the appellants from obeying the order under appeal and that any compliance with the learned Single Judge's order would be subject to the final result of the appeal. But then the changes brought about in the interregnum in obedience of the orrdr under appeal might themselves be a cause and source of prejudice. Wherever the order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and stay of its operation is pending before the Court, it will be appropriate to take up for consideration the prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with the complaint for contempt. To keep the prayer for stay stand-by and to insist upon proceeding with the complaint for contempt might in many conceivable cases, as here, cause serious

1995 Supp (4) SCC 465

prejudice. This is the view taken in State of J & K V.Mohd. Yaqyoob Khan 2.

5. In the present case, under the threat of proceedings of contempt, the appellants had to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the pendency of their appeal and the application for stay. The petitioners are confronted with a position where their stay application is virtually rendered infructuous by the steps they had to take on threat of contempt.

6. We, accordingly, direct that all further proceedings in the contempt proceedings be stayed. It will be appropriate for the High Court to take up and dispose of the application for stay without reference to the developments in the interregnum, namely, that the respondents had to obey the order of the learned Single Judge under pain of proceedings of contempt. ......."

6. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioners placed on

record the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Union of India

and Others Vs. Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja and

Others"3 wherein it was held at Paras 101.1 to 101.4, which reads

as follows:

"Neither the judgment of the Delhi High Court nor the judgment of AFT was stayed during the pendency of these appeals. The Union Government and the Naval Authorities could not have proceeded on the misconceived basis that the mere pendency of the present appeals was a licence to not comply with the directions contained in the judgments of the High Court and AFT. As a result the failure of the authorities to consider the SSC Officers for the grant of PCs, their status continued in a state of uncertainty, effectively depriving them not only of the benefits which would accrue to them in terms of career advancement but also the ability to occupy progressively higher positions in the hierarchy upon the grant of PCs. While the Union Government and the Naval Authorities did not consider any SSC women officers for the grant of

(1992) 4 SCC 167

(2020) 13 SCC 1

PCs, it has now claimed that the cadre is saturated. This position has transpired precisely as a result of the failure to implement the directions of the Delhi High Court and of AFT, while at the same time continuing to make recruitments. The right to be considered for the grant of PCs arose under the policy dated 25.02.1999. The Policy Letter dated 26.09.2008 was issued oblivious to the earlier policy document and had the effect of denying benefits to SSC Officers who were in saddle, besides restricting the cadres/ branches in which SSC Officers could be granted PCs. Though the Policy Letter dated 26.09.2008 was declared to be invalid by the High Court and by AFT, the authorities have relied upon either the absence of vacancies or the prospective application of the Policy Letter dated 26.09.2008 to deny relief to SSC Officers. If the Naval Authorities had considered SSC Officers for the grant of PCs in terms of the Policy Letter dated 25.02.1999, that would have obviated a situation of saturation of cadres with which the SSC Officers are now sought to be confronted as a ground to deny them relief to which they were legitimately entitled in terms of the policy dated 25.02.1999."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record the

above decision and vehemently contended that the respondents

deliberately disobeying the orders of this Court. Therefore the

respondents are liable to be punished under Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971.

8. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents would contend that a Writ Appeal No. 614 of 2022 is

pending against the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.993 of

2011, dated 13.04.2022. During pendency of the said Appeal,

normally this Court will not initiate or adjudicate any Contempt

proceedings in which it is alleged that the impugned order in the

said appeal has not been complied with. In view of the same the

respondents not guilty of any willful disobedience or negligent to

implement the orders of this Court.

9. This Court passed an order Writ Petition No.993 of 2011,

dated 13.04.2022. Assailing the said order, the respondents

preferred Writ Appeal No. 614 of 2022 on 20.06.2022 and the same

is pending. It is contended by learned Senior Standing Counsel for

the respondents in the counter-affidavit that normally under the

Writ Rules, if no time limit is fixed for implementation of any order

passed by this Court, it is stipulated that two months time will be

available for implementing any Court Order. In fact the Writ Appeal

has been filed on 20.06.2022. Further two months period was to

expire on 13.06.2022 as contended by the respondents. This

Contempt Case was filed on 16.06.2022. Which shows that the

respondents deliberately dodging the matter without compliance of

the orders of this Court even after two months. Though Writ Appeal

has been filed, wherein there is no stay of further proceedings in

the matter and further since six months the respondents

contended that the Writ Appeal is filed and same is pending. This

Court observed that the respondents did not take steps to proceed

with the writ appeal to get finality and simply gaining time.

Therefore the act of the respondents is vitiated on the face of the

record itself.

10. In the case of "M. Santhi Vs. Mr. Pradeep Yadav and

Another"4 wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court held as follows:

"20. 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 objective, 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 that even if Article 129 and 215 were not there in Constitution the contempt owers 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".

The Hon'ble Madras High Court has clearly specified the

purpose and object in filing the Contempt Case as cited supra.

11. The contents of the counter-affidavit would speak the

volume of the conduct of the respondents in not implementing the

orders of this Court. Moreover, in every adjournment in the

contempt case, the respondents representing that the writ appeal

is pending and seeks time. This Court has granted several

adjournments in this case at the request of learned Standing

Counsel for the respondents; so far, neither stay order is produced

Contempt Petition No. 377 of 2018, dated 11.04.2018 Madras High Court

nor comply with the orders of this Court by the respondents/

contemnors. Therefore, the acts of the respondents in not comply

with the order of this court amounts to contempt of courts.

12. As admitted by the respondents in its counter-affidavit

that the order of this Court has to be complied with within two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as per Writ

Rules, though time is not fixed in the order itself. But knowing

pretty well, the respondents did not choose to comply with the

order of this Court. Therefore this Court opined that respondents

knowingly, willfully and deliberately disobeying the orders of this

Court.

13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the view that the conduct of the respondent/

contemnors is such as would justify invocation of contempt

jurisdiction of this Court. Not only have the contemnors

unreasonably delayed and defaulted in compliance of the orders of

this Court without explaining the cause for such default, or

seeking extension of time for compliance; but they have also

sought to avoid compliance of the order, even after taking benefit of

the extended time period granted for compliance of the same.

14. I must express my inability to agree. It is incumbent

upon the respondents, more particularly, those who are holding

senior position in Government, to ensure that the Orders of this

Court are complied with promptitude, and within the time

stipulated for its compliance. Any difficulty which they may have in

complying with the order of this Court would require them to

invoke this Court jurisdiction seeking extension of time to comply

with the orders. Admittedly, in the present case, no such efforts

were made by the respondents, except representing that the writ

appeal is pending since six months.

15. Under these circumstances, this Court of the firm view

that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order passed by

this Court dated 13.04.2022 in W.P.No. 993 of 2011 and thereby

the respondents are guilty of contempt and have rendered

themselves liable for suitable punishment under the provisions of

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The respondents, more particularly

2nd respondent is hereby held guilty for the contempt of this Court

for willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 13.04.2022

in W.P.No. 993 of 2011 and is held liable to be punished suitably

under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act.

16. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the

contemnor i.e 2nd respondent is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one (01) month and to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in default of payment of

fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01)

week. The Contemnor/ 2nd respondent is directed to surrender

before the Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Andhra Pradesh on or

before 27.12.2022; on such surrender, the Registrar (Judicial), is

directed to remand him to jail for a period of one (01) month.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: 13.12.2022.

KK

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

Contempt Case No.1819 of 2022

Date:13.12.2022.

KK