Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Rev Bugge A Kumar vs M Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2022

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

                     Contempt Case No.170 of 2019

ORDER:

This contempt case is filed alleging violation of orders passed by

this Court in IA No.1 of 2019 in WP No.302 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019.

WP No.302 of 2019 was filed "to declare any permission granted

by respondents 1 to 4 to respondents 5 to 9 to conduct the 2019 Annual

gospel Meeting from 27.01.2019 to 29.01.2019, as illegal and arbitrary

and to stop the conduct of the 2019 Annual Gospel Meeting by

respondents 5 to 9." IA No.1 of 2019 was filed to grant interim

suspension of any such permission to 2019 Annual Gospel Meeting. In the

said I.A., this Court passed the following order:

"In view of the fact that the permission was already refused to the unofficial respondents for conduct of the 2019 Annual Gospel Meeting from 27.01.2019 to 29.01.2019 at Nachugunta village, Unguturu Mandal, no further orders are necessary for the present.

Learned counsel for the petitioners apprehends that in spite of the rejection of the permission, the unofficial respondents would conduct the 2019 annual gospel meeting from 27.01.2019 to 29.01.2019 at Nachugunta village, Unguturu Mandal, as was done in the previous year, which is subject matter of the contempt case.

In view of the same, the official respondents are directed to act in accordance with law to see that there should not be any law land order violation."

Alleging violation of the said order dated 25.01.2019 by the

respondents, present contempt case is filed.

In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it is stated

that in spite of the orders of this Court, respondents 4 to 8 have

conducted the said meeting from 27.01.2019 to 29.01.2019 and that

KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019

respondents 1 to 3 did not stop the unlawful action of respondents 4 to 8

and hence, respondents herein have deliberately violated the orders of

this Court.

Counter-affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent i.e., Ch.V.

Ramesh, who worked as Sub Inspector of Police, Chebrolu PS, West

Godavari District from 23.01.2019 to 03.07.2019, stating inter-alia that

the 5th respondent has submitted a representation dated 13.11.2018 to

then Sub Inspector of Police, to accord permission to carry out

canvassing and to conduct public meeting and the same was forwarded

to the Sub Divisional Police Officer for necessary action but he has not

accorded permission to use loud speakers for 'Christian meeting and also

for auto canvassing' at the meeting of Bible Mission Church and rejected

the request of the 5th respondent; contention of the petitioners that

respondents 1 to 3 have allowed respondents 4 to 8 to proceed with the

conduct of the meeting and that it is deliberate violation of the Court

order is not correct; no untoward incidents have happened during his

tenure and no cases were registered against any one on the file of

Chebrolu PS and that he did not violate the orders passed by this Court

and prayed for dismissal of the contempt case.

Counter-affidavit is also filed by the 7th respondent, on behalf of

respondents 5 to 8, stating inter-alia that there is no executable order

passed by this Court against them and direction was only to the official

respondents to act in accordance with law and that there should not be

any law and order violation; the writ petition itself has become

infructuous by the date of passing of the order and the petitioners filed

SOP No.445 of 2017 against the unofficial respondents under Section 23

of the Societies Registration Act and the same is pending adjudication

KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019

before the Special Court; I.A. filed by the petitioners before the Special

Court against the unofficial respondents seeking temporary injunction

restraining them from doing activities was dismissed on 02.06.2018 and

another I.A. filed by the petitioners against the unofficial respondents to

restrain them from making constructions in the property of the Bible

Mission was also dismissed on 02.06.2018 and the said facts were

suppressed in the present writ petition; 1st petitioner was suspended on

07.06.2017 and subsequently expelled from the Bible Mission on

04.12.2017; the said order is not challenged in any Court and that they

have not violated any order and prayed to dismiss the contempt case.

Sri Krishna C.V. Grandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners,

submits that as the permission was refused to the unofficial respondents

to use loud speakers for the meeting and for auto canvassing and as they

used the mike in the said meeting and as the official respondents did not

take any action, it would amount to violation of the orders passed by

this Court. He further submits that this Court directed the official

respondents to see that there should not be any law and order violation,

but the unofficial respondents have violated the provisions of Sections 30

to 32 of the Police Act.

Learned Government Pleader for Home & Law appearing for the

official respondents submits that there is no positive contempt

committed by the official respondents and the conduct of the meeting is

not violation and no untoward incident has occurred in the meeting.

Smt. P.M. Sunitha, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial

respondents submits that there is no executable order against them and

that there is no averment that the law and order was violated and no

complaint whatsoever has been given by the petitioners and hence,

KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019

there is no willful disobedience of the orders of this Court. She also

specifically submits that no mikes were used on the date of the meeting

and that the material filed by the petitioners is a fabricated one.

As seen from the order dated 13.11.2018 of the Sub Divisional

Police Officer, Eluru, permission was refused to the unofficial

respondents and the copy of the said refusal order was filed along with

the counter-affidavit. The said proceedings read as follows:

"Permission is hereby not accorded to use loud speaker for 'Christian meeting and also auto canvassing' at the meeting of Bible Mission Church in Nachugunta of Unguturu Mandal, because the Bible mission church matter is in Hon'ble Court as a civil matter."

In view of the said proceedings, what is prohibited is only to use

the loud speaker and auto canvassing. In the affidavit filed in support of

the contempt case, in paras 5 to 7, it is stated thus:

"5. I respectfully submit that in spite of the orders of the Hon'ble Court, Respondents Nos.4 to 8 conducted 2019 Annual gospel Meeting from 27.01.2019 to 29.01.2019 at Nachugunta village, Unguturu Mandal. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein did not consider the order of this Hon'ble Court and have not stopped the unlawful action of the Respondents Nos.4 to 8.

6. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.4 to l8, in violation of a similar order of this Hon'ble Court in 2018, conducted the 2018 Annual Gospel Meeting. A contempt petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents vide CC No.397/2018 in WP No.1369 of 2018 is currently pending before the Hon'ble High Court.

7. It is respectfully submitted that in spite of the orders of the Hon'ble Court, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 allowed Respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein to proceed with the conduct of 2019 Annual Gospel Meeting from 27.01.2019 to 29.01.2019 at Nachugunta village, Unguturu Mandal. Therefore, respondents have intentionally and deliberately violated the order of this Hon'ble Court and committed contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act."

KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019

As seen from the above paragraphs, it is only stated that

respondents 4 to 8 have conducted the meeting and that respondents 1

to 3 allowed respondents 4 to 8 to proceed with the meeting. It is not

even averred in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case that

the permission was refused to use the loud speakers and auto canvassing

and that in spite of the same, loud speakers were used and auto

canvassing was also done. Learned counsel for the petitioners also stated

that CDs also show that the meeting was conducted by using mikes. As

there is no averment in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt

case that mikes were used and auto canvassing was done, there is no

denial in the counter-affidavit. However, learned counsel for the

unofficial respondents submits that the documents and the CDs were

fabricated and that no mikes were used in the said meting.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Sections 30 to 32 of

the Police Act, 1861.

Sections 30 to 32 of the Police Act, read as follows:

"30. Regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of the same.--

1. The District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police may, as occasion requires, direct the conduct of all assemblies and processions on the public roads, or in the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the routes by which, and the times at which, such processions may pass.

2. He may also, on being satisfied that it is intended by any persons or class of person to convene or collect an assembly in any such road, street or thoroughfare, or to form a procession which would, in the judgment of the Magistrate of the district, or of the sub- division of a district, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace, require by general or special notice that the persons convening or collecting such assembly or directing or promoting such procession shall apply for a licence.

3. On such application being made, he may issue a license specifying the names of the licensees and defining the conditions

KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019

on which alone such assembly or such procession is to be permitted to take place and otherwise giving effect to this section: Provided that no fee shall be charged on the application for, or grant of, any such licence.

4. Music in the streets:- He may also regulate the extent to which music may be used in the streets on the occasion of festivals and ceremonies.

31. Police to keep order in public roads, etc.:- It shall be the duty of the police to keep order on the public roads, and in the public streets, thoroughfares, ghats and landing places, and at all other places of public resort, and to prevent obstructions on the occasions of assemblies and processions on the public roads and in the public streets, or in the neighbourhood of places of worship, during the time of public worship, and in any case when any road, street, thoroughfare, ghat or landing- place may be thronged or may be liable to be obstructed.

32. Penalty for disobeying orders issued under last three sections, etc.--

Every person opposing or not obeying the orders issued under the last three preceding sections, or violating the conditions of any license granted by the District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police for the use of music, or for the conduct of assemblies and processions, shall be liable, on conviction before a Magistrate, to a fine not exceeding two hundred rupees."

Section 30 of the Police Act, deals with the regulation of public

assemblies and processions and licensing of the same, Section 31 deals

with order on public roads etc. and Section 32 deals with the penalty for

disobeying orders issued under last three sections etc. According to sub-

section (3) of Section 30, licence can be issued defining the conditions

on which alone such assembly or such procession is to be permitted to

take place. In the present case, in fact permission was refused to use

the loud speakers and auto canvassing vide order dated 13.11.2018 by

the Sub Divisional Police Officer. The order in the writ petition is to see

that there is no law and order violation. Contention of the learned

KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019

counsel for the petitioners is that as the unofficial respondents used the