S. Venkatesh vs Sri G. Chandraiah
2024 Latest Caselaw 4873 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

S. Venkatesh vs Sri G. Chandraiah on 28 June, 2024

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                   CONTEMPT CASE No.6916 OF 2023

ORDER:

-

1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining alleged willful

disobedience in implementing the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by

this Court in W.P.No.13125 of 2023.

2. The petitioner filed W.P No.13125 of 2023 to declare the action of

the 3rd respondent in not implementing the orders vide proceedings

Roc.No.R-4905666/2021/C1/C2 dated 17.10.2022 issued by the 2nd

respondent and not allowing the petitioner to joining report as Revenue

Officer as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper insubordination and

violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and

consequently direct the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioner to joining

report as revenue Officer with all consequential benefits.

3. Upon hearing both the parties, on 12.05.2023, this Court

disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:

"Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent seeking reinstatement of his services in view of the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent within a NV,J

period of ten (10) days from today. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) weeks, thereafter."

4. Learned counsel submits that, after obtaining order from this

Court, the petitioner submitted representation along with order copy

to the respondent on 26.05.2023. But, the respondent did not

implement the orders of this Court inspite of receiving the copy of the

order of this Court

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, without proper

consideration and without taking into account of the Municipal laws

and contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court, the respondent

passed orders vide proceedings Roc.No.1289/2022-C1 dated

13.06.2023 not permitting the petitioner to duty on the ground of

incidents of irregularities. Further, the respondent informed the

petitioner to approach the Commissioner & Director of Municipal

Administration, A.P., Vaddeswaram, Guntur.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner

submitted a representation to the Commissioner & Director of

Municipal Administration, wherein, the Commissioner & Director of NV,J

Municipal Administration vide proceedings Roc.No.R-

4905666/2021/C1/C2 dated 06.07.2023 found fault with the action of

the respondent and directed to comply with the orders dated

17.10.2022. But, till date, the same is not complied by the

respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondent

being aware about the direction issued by this Court, obviously for

reasons best known to him, did not implement the order of this Court

which amounts to contempt, as defined under Section 2(b) of the

Contempt of Courts Act and that the respondent is liable for

punishment as per Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act and

requested to punish him in accordance with law.

8. Respondent - Former Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,

Machilipatnam and presently working as Additional Commissioner,

Eluru Municipal Corporation filed counter affidavit stating that,

responding to the reinstatement orders issue by the Commissioner &

Director of Municipal Administration, Guntur dated 17.10.2022, the

Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Machilipatnam submitted a letter

stating that the petitioner did not work anywhere except in NV,J

Machilipatnam Municipality since his date of appointment and due to

his long standing of continuous service in Machilipatnam Municipality

leaded and caused to receiving so many complaints and leveled so

many allegations against the petitioner during his working tenure in

Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation and the Mayor requested the

Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration to transfer the

petitioner to any other suitable Municipality as per his equivalent

cadre of Revenue Officer (Grade-III) whereas the Machilipatnam

Municipal Corporation, Revenue Officer present Cadre is Grade-I

Revenue Officer and to avoid complaints and allegations of long

standing continuation and irregularities said to have been committed

and pointed out by the ACB Authorities.

9. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that, in view of the

above circumstances and in obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble

Court dated 12.05.2023, the respondent - Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation, Machilipatnam passed appropriate orders dated

09.06.2023 within a period of two weeks, not permitting the petitioner

to join and informing the petitioner to approach the Commissioner &

Director of Municipal Administration, Guntur, as such, there is no NV,J

disobedience of the orders of this Court and prayed to close the

Contempt Case against him.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the

respondent/contemnor wantonly and intentionally failed to pass

appropriate orders considering the order passed by the Commissioner

& Director of Municipal Administration in Roc.No.R-

4905666/2021/C1/C2 dated 17.10.2022 and thus, the respondent in his

official capacity is liable for punishment in terms of Sections 10 to 12 of

the Contempt of Courts Act.

11. The other contention of the petitioner is that the respondent did

not implement the orders of this Court dated 12.05.2023 wantonly,

deliberately with an intention to deprive this petitioner from

discharging his duties, as an employee in the Machilipatnam

Municipal Corporation. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent

contended that the order of this Court was implemented in it's letter

and spirit.

12. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents denied

intentional or deliberate violation of the direction issued by this Court.

He would submit that, upon receiving the orders of this Court dated NV,J

12.05.2023, the respondent passed appropriate orders with a period

of two weeks vide proceedings dated 09.06.2023 not permitting the

petitioner to join his duties, in view of his long standing alleged

irregularities said to have been committed and pointed out by the

ACB Authorities and further informed the petitioner to approach the

Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration, Guntur and

requested to dismiss the contempt case against the respondent.

13. The contention of the respondent is that, in obedience of the

orders passed by this Court on 12.05.2023, the respondent -

Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation passed

appropriate orders within a period of two weeks vide proceedings in

Roc.No.1298/2022-C1 dated 09.06.2023 not permitting the petitioner to

join duty and informing the petitioner to approach the Commissioner &

Director of Municipal Administration, Vaddeswaram, Guntur, for further

orders. Thus, the respondent did not violate the orders, muchless,

willfully or intentionally and thereby, not liable for contempt. The

respondent also made several allegations with regard to conduct of the

petitioner, but they are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the

controversy in the contempt case, more particularly, to decide whether

the respondent willfully, deliberately or intentionally violated the orders NV,J

of this Court dated 12.05.2023. Therefore, they are not required to be

extracted in the present contempt case.

14. Heard Sri T.S.N. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent and perused the record.

15. Before adverting to the facts of the case, I find it apposite to

narrate the legal position for better appreciation of the case and

application of law.

16. The Contempt of Court is defined under Section 2(a) as

follows: "contempt of court means, civil contempt or criminal

contempt", Whereas clause (b) of Section 2 defines Civil Contempt

as "willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ

or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to

a court."

17. The Contempt jurisdiction is not conferred on the Subordinate

Courts and it is only conferred on the Court of record, in view of

Article 215 of the Constitution of India. According to it, the High Court

shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a NV,J

Court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The

jurisdiction of contempt is independent jurisdiction of its original

nature. Therefore, this Court is competent to exercise such power to

punish a person, who is guilty of contempt and this jurisdiction is

enjoyed by Courts, is only for the purpose of upholding the

jurisdiction of the judicial system that exists. While exercising this

power, the Court must not react by the emotion, but must act

judicially. Contempt proceedings are intended to ensure compliance

of the orders of the Court and strict adherence of rule of law. Once,

the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, the

Court shall initiate action, uninfluenced by the nature of direction in a

pending lis before the Court vide judgment in Priya Gupta and

others vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare and others1). Contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is

only for the purpose of upholding the majesty of judicial system that

exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hyper

sensitive or swang by emotions, but must act judicially (Vide:

2012 (12) SCALE 289 NV,J

Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal vs. SK.

Monobbor Hossain2).

18. "Contempt" is disorderly conduct of contemnor causing serious

damage to the institution of justice administration. Such conduct, with

reference to its adverse effects and consequences, can be

discernibly classified into two categories one which has a transient

effect on the system and/or the person concerned and is likely to

wither by the passage of time while the other causes permanent

damage to the institution and administration of Justice (Vide:

Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and others3).

19. As seen from the order of the Commissioner & Director of

Municipal Administration, Guntur dated 17.10.2022, it is clear that the

order of suspension passed against the petitioner - S. Venkatesh,

Revenue Officer is revoked and he was reinstated into service,

pending examination of the explanation dated 04.10.2022 submitted

by him. The operative portion of the order of the Commissioner &

Director of Municipal Administration dated 17.10.2022 is as follows:

(2012)3 SCALE 534

(2011) 6 SCALE 220 NV,J

"In view of the above, the suspension of Sri S. Venkatesh, Revenue Officer (u/s), Municipal Corporation, Machilipatnam, is hereby revoked and reinstated into service pending examination of the explanation dated 04.10.2022 submitted by Sri S. Venkatesh, Revenue Officer (u/s), Municipal Corporation, Machilipatnam."

20. Since the respondent herein did not implement the order

passed by the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration

dated 17.10.2022, the petitioner filed the present contempt case.

21. It is to be noted that this Court passed order on 12.05.2023

directing this petitioner to approach the Commissioner,

Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation for implementation of the order

and directed the Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipal

Corporation to pass appropriate orders, keeping in view the orders

passed by the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration

dated 17.10.2022. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the

respondent - Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation.

But, the respondent issued proceedings in Roc.No.1298/2022-C1

dated 13.06.2023 not permitting the petitioner to join and informed

the petitioner to approach Commissioner & Director of Municipal NV,J

Administration for further orders. The operative portion of the order

dated 13.06.2023 reads as follows:

"In obedience to the Hon'ble High Court orders in W.P.No.13125 of 2023 dated 12.05.2023 vide reference 4 th cited, and as per the representation submitted by Sri S. Venkatesh, Revenue Officer dated 27.05.2023 vide reference 5th cited, appropriate orders were passed stating that due to long standing stay of the individual in Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation such type of irregularities and loss of revenue of collection were detected by the ACB authorities and there is every possibility to continue such type of incidents like causing of financial loss of collection of Revenue in this Municipal Corporation if Sri S. Venkatesh, Revenue Officer is continued for further period even after detection of certain irregularities by the ACB authorities and also Sri S. Venkatesh is a III-Category Revenue Officer where the sanction post of Revenue Officer of Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation is the post of Category-II Revenue Officer and the individual is not entitled to post in Category-II Revenue Officer in Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation.

In view of the above circumstances, I request the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration to kindly post Sri S. Venkiatesh, Revenue Officer category-III to any other Municipality or Municipal Corporation in the interest of smooth administration and to avoid further allegations & irregularities expected to be taken place."

NV,J

22. It appears from the orders of the respondent that he not only

violated the orders of this Court dated 12.05.2023, but also violated the

order of the higher authority dated 17.10.2022. The respondent is only

an implementing authority to permit the petitioner to join his duties and if

for any reason, no post in Category-III Revenue Officer is available, the

respondent would have addressed a letter to the Commissioner &

Director of Municipal Administration for transfer of the petitioner to any

other station/place. Instead of implementing the order, the respondent,

by considering the letter dated 29.03.2023 addressed by the

Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation, even without making any

reference in the proceedings, did not permit the petitioner to join in

service as Revenue Officer of Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation.

Thus, the act of the respondent in passing the proceedings in

Roc.No.1298/2022-C-1 dated 13.06.2023, directing this petitioner to

approach the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration for

appropriate orders is not only an intentional avoidance to implement the

order of this Court.

23. The Municipal Corporation is a local authority, Mayor is only a

People's Representative, but not the administrative head. Even NV,J

otherwise, when this Court issued a direction to the respondent to pass

an appropriate order, keeping in view the order passed by

Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration dated 17.10.2022,

despite revoking the suspension order passed by the authorities, the

action of the respondent in not implementing the order of this Court

clearly amounts to intentional and deliberate violation of the order not

only of this Court, but also higher authorities.

24. In the present facts of the case, Respondent with scant respect to

the order passed by this Court dated 12.05.2023, did not permit the

petitioner to join duty. The admission made in the counter affidavit filed

by the Respondent is suffice to hold that, Respondent violated or

disobeyed the order of this Court willfully, knowing the ill-consequences

that flow from such violation i.e. conscious violation of the order of this

Court dated 12.05.2023, which amounts to violation of Rule of Law.

Therefore, the act of Respondent - Commissioner, Machilipatnam

Municipal Corporation by his disorderly conduct caused serious damage

to the institution of justice administration. Such conduct, with reference

to its adverse effects and consequences, can be discernibly classified

into two categories one which has a transient effect on the system

and/or the person concerned and is likely to wither away by the passage NV,J

of time while the other causes permanent damage to the institution and

administration of justice. (vide Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India4)

25. When once an order is passed, it is the duty of the authorities

to implement the same without giving any interpretation and if the

order is contrary to law, they are at liberty to file appropriate appeal

before the appellate authority. But, without preferring an appeal, the

respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and give different

meaning to the order passed by the Court, which is sought to be

implemented, as directed by this Court. Such act of the

respondent/contemnor is illegal in view of the law declared by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board

vs. C. Muddaiah5, wherein, it is held as follows:

31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such

(2011) 6 SCALE 220

(2007) 7 SCC 689 NV,J

argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected.

32. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the Court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the Court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case, w3here ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a Court of Law. The Court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The Court, in the circumstances, directs the Authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the Authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged.

We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is 'no work no pay'. In appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The Court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The Court may in the circumstances, direct the Authority to grant him all benefits considering 'as if he had worked'. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of NV,J

consequential benefits can be granted by a Court of Law and if such directions are issued by a Court, the Authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant-Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected.

26. The same view is expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others6, where the

Court held that, while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court

is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which

has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be

permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier

decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different than

what was taken in the earlier decision If any party concerned is

aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or

its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always

either approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction

of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be

urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be

obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for

contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court

(2004) 7 SCC 261 NV,J

cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged It

cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or

otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any

direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with

an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would

be impermissible and indefensible.

27. In The State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari7, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court while dealing with violation of order passed under Order

XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Court, held that, a party

proceeded against Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C for disobedience of

an order of injunction cannot be held to have willfully disobeyed the

order provided two conditions are satisfied viz., (1) that the order was

ambiguous and was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation

(2) that the party being proceeded against in fact did not intend to

disobey the order, but conducted himself in accordance with his

interpretation of the order. The question whether a party has understood

an order in a particular manner and has conducted himself in

accordance with such a construction is primarily one of-fact, and where

the materials before the Court do not support such a state of affairs, the

AIR 1961 SCC 221 NV,J

Court cannot attribute an innocent intention based on presumptions, for

the only reason, that ingenuity of Counsel can discover equivocation in

the order which is the subject of enforcement. Though undoubtedly

proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C have a punitive

aspect - as is evident from the contemnor being liable to be ordered to

be detained in civil prison, they are in substance designed to effect the

enforcement of or to execute the order. This is clearly brought out by

their identity with the procedure prescribed by Order XXI Rule 32 of

C.P.C for execution of a decree for permanent injunction. No doubt the

State Government not being a natural person could not be ordered to

be detained in civil prison, On the analogy of Corporations; for which

special provision is made in Order XXXIX Rule V C.P.C, but beyond

that, both when a decree for a permanent injunction is executed and

when an order of temporary injunction is enforced the liability of the

State Government to be proceeded against appears to us clear.

28. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really

concerned with the question as to whether the earlier decision which

has received its finality had been complied with or not. This Court is

primarily concerned with the question of conduct of the party who is

alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the NV,J

judgment or order. If there is any ambiguity or indefiniteness in the

order, it is for the concerned party to approach the Higher Court, if

according to him/her the same is not legally tenable and such a

question has necessarily to be agitated before the Higher Court.

Assuming that a question arose about impossibility of complying with

the order, if that was the case, atleast the respondent could have done

was to assail correctness of the order/judgment before the Higher

Court. But, the respondent and failed to comply with the order of this

Court. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its

opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither

practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the Court that

passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness

or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings.

Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the

Court would render the party liable for contempt.

29. That apart, According to Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services

(Conduct) Rules, 1964, disobeying the order of the Commissioner &

Director of Municipal Administration is nothing but insubordination,

which amounts to misconduct. Therefore, the respondent is not only

liable for punishment for Contempt of Court, but also liable for NV,J

disobeying the order of both the Court and higher authority i.e

Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration.

30. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to

the present facts of the case, this Court can safely conclude that

respondent - Sri G.Chandraiah, Commissioner, Machilipatnam

Municipal Corporation ex facie committed Contempt of Court, as

defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and

liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Act. However, it is left

open to the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration to

initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the

respondent/contemnor, since such conduct would amount to

misconduct and cannot be encouraged for smooth administration in the

office. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent, in utter

disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 12.05.2023,

consciously violated the order passed by this Court and did not permit

him to join the petitioner into duty as Revenue Officer. Such conduct

would not only impede the rule of law, but also cause serious damage

to the judicial institution and judicial administration. Therefore, such

conduct of the respondent cannot be encouraged by this Court, taking NV,J

lenient view against such person who caused serious damage to the

judicial institution itself.

31. As discussed above, and in view of the findings recorded by this

Court in the above paragraphs, Respondent - Commissioner,

Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation is liable for punishment as per

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and thereby he is

punished sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of

six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand

only).

32. In the result, contempt case is allowed, directing Respondent -

Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation to undergo simple

imprisonment for a term of six (06) months and to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).

33. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

Date: 28.06.2024

Contd....

NV,J

34. After dictating the above order, learned counsel for

Respondent/Contemnor requested this Court to suspend the above

order, so as to enable her to prefer an appeal.

35. At request of the learned counsel for the Respondent/

Contemnor, the above order is suspended for a period of four (04)

weeks to prefer an appeal. In case no appeal is preferred or no stay is

granted by the Appellate Court in the appeal if any preferred,

Respondent/Contemnor shall surrender before Registrar (Judicial), High

Court of Andhra Pradesh on 26.07.2024 before 05.00 p.m to undergo

sentence.

______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 28.06.2024

SP NV,J

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

CONTEMPT CASE No.6916 OF 2023

Date: 28.06.2024

SP