Karem Mamatha vs Haris Kumar Guptha
2023 Latest Caselaw 4973 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                 CONTEMPT CASE No.120 of 2023


ORDER:

The petitioner is the Convener of a political party. She had

applied, on 27.10.2022, to the Commissioner of Police,

Visakhapatnam, for permission to conduct a rally between

YMCA to RK Beach and a public meeting on RK beach, on

10.12.2022. As the said application was not being considered,

the petitioner had approached this Court, by way of

W.P.No.36496 of 2022 which was disposed of by an order dated

14.11.2022. The operative part reads as follows:

"In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.10.2022, and pass orders on the said representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order."

2. The petitioner has now moved the present Contempt

Case complaining of violation of the above orders of this Court.

It is the case of the petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner

of Police, East Sub-Division, Visakhapatnam, by proceedings

dated 08.12.2022 had refused permission for the rally and

public meeting on frivolous and untenable grounds and the

same would amount to violation of the orders of this Court on

two counts. Firstly, the Assistant Commissioner of Police had

passed the order of rejection when the direction of this Court

was to the Commissioner of Police, arrayed as 3rd respondent, in

the Writ petition and in the present Contempt Case. Secondly,

the reasons given for rejection of the permission are untenable

and have been set out solely to show some cause or the other for

rejecting the permission and the same is violative of the order of

this Court as the said order of rejection would not amount to

consideration of the application of the petitioner.

3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in

which it is stated that the application of the petitioner dated

27.10.2022, which had been received in the office of the 3rd

respondent, had been forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner,

East Sub-Division as the said Assistant Commissioner was the

competent and appropriate authority to consider and pass

orders under Section 30 of the Police Act. Subsequently, the

order of this Court dated 14.11.2022 had been received by the

office of the 3rd respondent only on 08.12.2022 along with a

fresh representation. As the application had already been sent to

the Assistant Commissioner, the fresh representation was

forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner for immediate action.

The Assistant Commissioner, had passed orders of rejection on

08.12.2022 itself and a copy of the order was served on the

petitioner. It is further submitted that the reasons set out in the

order are germane to the consideration of the application and

set out reasonable cause for refusing permission. It is submitted

that there has been no violation of the directions of this Court

and an unconditional apology was also offered in the event of

this Court. Coming to a conclusion that there has been a

violation of the orders of this Court.

4. The petitioner has filed a reply to the counter

contending that the order of rejection, passed by the Assistant

Commissioner, is not in compliance with the orders of this Court

in letter and spirit and that the said order amounts to contempt

of the orders of this Court.

5. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner would further submit that the respondents had

been represented before this Court in the Writ Petition and the

counsel for the respondents was very much present in the Court

when the order was being dictated. He would submit that in

such circumstances, it must be taken that there was notice of

the order, to the respondents, on 14.11.2022 itself and the non

disposal of the application of the petitioner within the time

granted by this Court is a clear violation of the orders of this

Court.

6. He would further submit, relying upon the

Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Hyderabad for the State

of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of

S.Kiranmayi vs N.Sambasiva Rao and Others1, and

Baradakanta Mishra vs Bhimsen Dixit2., to contend that the

conduct of the respondents in the manner in which the

application of the petitioner has been disposed of needs to be

condemned. He also relies upon paragraph 16 of the Judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.T. Sunup vs

CANSS Employees Association3

7. The order of this Court was a direction to the 3rd

respondent herein to dispose of the application of the petitioner.

Respondents 1, 2, 4 & 5 had no role in the matter and no

allegations of any nature have been made against these

respondents. In the circumstances, the Contempt Case is

dismissed against these respondents.

8. The order of this Court dated 14.11.2022 required

the 3rd respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner

dated 27.10.2022, within a period of one week, from the date of

receipt of the order. This would mean that a copy of the order

would have to be served on the 3rd respondent. There is no

averment in the affidavit of the petitioner as to the date on

2017 Law Suit (Hyd) 220

1972 Law Suit (SC) 465

2004 Law Suit (SC) 1240

which the order has been served. The 3rd respondent, in his

counter affidavit, admitted that the order was received in his

office on 08.12.2022. The order of rejection was passed on

08.12.2022 and as such, it cannot be said that the order is

beyond the time stipulated by this Court.

9. The petitioner contends that the order of rejection

was passed on untenable and extraneous grounds and such an

order of rejection is not in compliance with the directions of this

Court. The order of rejection contains seven reasons for rejecting

the application of the petitioner. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar

contends that reasons 1 and 2 do not arise as the permissions

mentioned in the said two reasons are obtained only after police

permission is granted. Reasons 3 to 7 contain other issues on

the basis of which the order of rejection has been passed. It is

settled law that, the correctness of the order passed in such a

case cannot be gone into in a contempt filed against violation of

the orders of a Court and the only avenue available to the

petitioner would be to challenge the same by way of separate

proceedings, unless the said order is so arbitrary and that no

reasonable person would consider such an order as an order

passed in compliance of a direction of this court. Such a

situation does not appear to be available in the present case.

10. The direction of this Court was a direction to the 3rd

respondent to consider and pass orders on the application of the

petitioner. However, it is the Assistant Commissioner of Police

who has passed the said order. Prima facie, it would appear that

there has been a violation of the directions of this Court.

However, the circumstances explained by the 3rd respondent

require further consideration. It is the case of the 3rd respondent

that the appropriate officer or authority to take a decision,

under Section 30 of the Police Act, on the application of the

petitioner is the Assistant Commissioner of the area. It is further

contended that the application of the petitioner had been sent to

the Assistant Commissioner even prior to the receipt of the

orders of this Court. In the circumstances, the passing of the

order by the Assistant Commissioner, cannot be treated, in

stricto sensu, a violation of the orders of this Court.

11. In the circumstances, no case of violation of the

orders of this Court attracting the provisions of Contempt of

Court Act appears to be made out.

12. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 13.10.2023 RJS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CONTEMPT CASE No.120 of 2023

Date : 13.10.2023

RJS