Telangana High Court
T.Srinu vs Sri Arvind Kumar on 25 January, 2021
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.42 of 2021
ORDER:
This Court, on 16.02.2018, while issuing notice before
admission in W.P.No.4972 of 2018, has passed the following order:
"In the meanwhile, the petitioners cannot be
dispossessed, however it will not enable any of the
petitioners to make any improvements or constructions or
alienations."
Alleging wilful disobedience of the above order by the
respondent-Contemnor, the present Contempt Case is filed by the
petitioner No.1 in the said writ petition, stating that the sole
contemnor has passed an order on 04.11.2020 holding that the
order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Metropolitan Commissioner
cancelling the draft layout holds good. The learned counsel has
contended that the passing of the orders by the Contemnor
amounts to virtually dispossessing the petitioner from the subject
property and the same is not only contrary to the order passed but
is a deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order.
When the matter came up on 22.01.2021, this Court has
queried the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the present
Contempt Case is maintainable in view of the fact that there is no
averment in the entire affidavit filed in support of the Contempt
Case about any physical dispossession of the petitioner by the
contemnor, and the learned counsel has took time.
Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that
by virtue of the order, dated 04.11.2020, the contemnor has
confirmed the title of one Peddi Suresh, respondent No.4 in
W.P.No.4972 of 2018, and the same amounts to dispossessing the
petitioner from the subject land. The learned counsel has further
argued that in spite of pendency of the writ petition before this
Court, the contemnor has passed the order dated 04.11.2020
without adverting to the pendency of the writ petition or the order
passed in the said writ petition and therefore the passing of the
order dated 04.11.2020 is nothing but deliberate and wilful
disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 16.02.2018 and
the contemnor is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.
Having given a conscious thought to the entire matter, this
Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any
prima facie case for issuing the notice in Form-I to the contemnor.
A perusal of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, more specifically Section 2 (b) thereof, which reads as under:
"2 (b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other
process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking
given to a Court."
clearly reveals that unless and until a deliberate and wilful
disobedience of the order passed by this Court is done by the
Contemnor, the question of punishing them does not arise.
A conjoint reading of the order, dated 16.02.2018, passed by
this Court in W.P.No.4972 of 2018 and the order dated 04.11.2020
passed by the Contemnor, does not reveal that the contemnor has
violated or done anything which could amount to deliberately
violating the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.4972 of 2018.
Merely because he has reiterated the earlier orders passed by his
predecessor-in-office, the same cannot dispossess the petitioner
which could amount to violating the orders of this Court. In view
of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the Contempt
Case and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open
to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 04.11.2020, before a
competent Forum, if he is so advised.
Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any,
shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J
Date : 25-01-2021.
sur/va
