Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Gorantla Sridhar vs Katta Jyosthna on 21 December, 2022

         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

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

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

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

(2003) 11 SCC 1

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

(2014) 16 SCC 204

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

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.