Telangana High Court

M/S. The Golconda Bc Labour ... vs Sri Dana Kishore , on 30 June, 2022

Bench: P.Madhavi Devi

        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI


                      C.C. No.327 of 2019


ORDER:

This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner

alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of this

court dated 23.11.2018 in W.P.No.41718/2018 by the

respondents herein and to punish the respondents for the same

under sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of the Courts Act.

2. It is submitted that Vide orders dated 23.11.2018 in

W.P.No.41718 of 2018, this court had directed the respondents

No.2 to 4 therein to deal with the representation dated

13.11.2018 submitted by the writ petitioner seeking clearance

of the bills, to which he is entitled to and pass appropriate

orders thereon in accordance with law, as early as possible,

preferably within a period of 6 to 8 weeks from the date of

receipt of copy of the order after giving a reasonable opportunity

of hearing to the writ petitioner and all concerned.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that after the orders dated 23.11.2018 were passed, PMD, J C.C.No.327 of 2019

the petitioner has submitted further representations on

1.12.2018, 5.12.2018 for clearance of the pending payments. It

is alleged that no action has been taken by the respondents and

therefore the petitioner was constrained to approach this court

by way of this Contempt petition.

4. On going through the docket order in this Contempt case,

it is noticed that vide orders dated 23.2.2021, this court had

again directed the respondents to comply with the order

forthwith failing which, the Commissioner, GHMC shall be

present in person before the court on the next date of hearing.

Consequent thereto, the respondents after giving notice of

hearing to the petitioner dt. 10.3.2021 to appear on 12.3.2021

and after the appearance of the petitioner on 12.3.2021 and

considering his statement, rejected the representation of

petitioner on 16.03.2021 with liberty to approach the office at

any future date with credible evidence in his possession.

Thereafter, this Contempt case came up for hearing on

14.7.2021 and at the request of the learned standing counsel, it

was adjourned and again on 09.03.2022, the Zonal

Commissioner, Central Zone was directed to be present in the

Court. On 11.3.2022, the copy of the orders disposing of the PMD, J C.C.No.327 of 2019

representation of the petitioner was produced before this Court

and the Zonal Commissioner was also present. Thereafter, the

presence of the Zonal Commissioner was dispensed with.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondents have deliberately and wilfully not complied with the

order of the court and it was only after a direction was given to

the Zonal Commissioner, Central Zone to be present in the

Court to explain the reasons for non compliance of the orders,

that the respondents have issued notice dt.10.03.2021, to the

petitioner that too with a direction to appear within two days i.e.

on 12.03.2021 and thereafter, within a period of 4 days i.e. on

16.03.2021 disposed of the representation of the petitioner,

holding that there was no evidence with regard to the work

carried out by the petitioner. According to him, this act of the

respondents in not verifying the contention of the petition and

disposing of the representation of the petitioner in a hasty

manner is not only in violation of principles of natural justice

but is also in clear violation of the directions of this Court and

was passed without any application of mind.

6. The learned standing counsel, however, relied upon the

averments in the counter affidavit.

PMD, J C.C.No.327 of 2019

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on

record, it is noticed that though the order of the court was

passed in the year 2018, the respondents have issued the

notices to the petitioner only on 10.3.2021 to appear on

12.3.2021 and have disposed of the representation of the

petitioner by order dated 16.3.2021. There is no justification or

any reason given by the respondents for not taking action on

the representation of the petitioner till 10.3.2021. Though it is

stated in the counter affidavit that the respondents have got

utmost respect towards this Hon'ble Court and its orders and

that every effort is made to implement the orders passed by this

Court both in letter and spirit, this court finds that the

respondents have clearly shown utter disregard to the direction

of this court and wilfully disobeyed by not implementing the

orders of the Court in its letter and spirit. The reasons given for

the delay for non compliance of the directions of the Court from

19.11.2018 till March 2021 are that the respondents were

occupied with Covid 19 work, floods in October 2020 and

Elections thereafter. However, this court finds that the Covid 19

and floods were in the year 2020 and at this later stage,

mentioning that there are no records of the petitioner executing PMD, J C.C.No.327 of 2019

the work and disposing of the petitioner's representation within

one week of receipt of the direction of the Court in the contempt

petition to be present in court, clearly shows the wilful disregard

and indifferent attitude of the respondents towards this Court.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maninderjit

Singh Bitta Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2012) 1

SCC 273 has held as under:-

20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of the orders of the court, even to constitute a civil contempt. Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The Government Departments are no exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected of the Government Department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making appropriate prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the PMD, J C.C.No.327 of 2019

only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally not carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court's orders would reflect the attitude of the concerned party to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice.

21. In the case of Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, this Court held that: (SCC p.617, para 39)

"39. ..... `judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform, viz., to oversee that all individuals and institutions including the executive and the legislature act within the framework of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peaceful and orderly development of the society. Dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs'.

22. Another very important aspect even of the Civil Contempt is, `what is the attribution of the contemnor?' There may be cases of disobedience where the respondent commits acts and deeds leading to actual disobedience of the orders of the court. Such contemnor may flout the orders of the court openly, intentionally and with no respect for the rule of law. While in some other cases of civil contempt, disobedience is the consequence or inference of a dormant or passive behaviour on the part of the contemnor. Such would be the cases where the contemnor does not take steps and just remains unmoved by the directions of the court. As such, even in cases where no positive/active role is directly PMD, J C.C.No.327 of 2019

attributable to a person, still, his passive and dormant attitude of inaction may result in violation of the orders of the court and may render him liable for an action of contempt.

23. It is not the offence of contempt which gets altered by a passive/negative or an active/positive behaviour of a contemnor but at best, it can be a relevant consideration for imposition of punishment, wherever the contemnor is found guilty of contempt of court.

24. With reference to Government officers, this Court in the case of E.T.Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Assn. took the view that it has become a tendency with the Government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of the Court by taking recourse to one justification or the other even if ex-facie they are unsustainable. The tendency of undermining the court orders cannot be countenanced.

25. Deprecating practice of undue delay in compliance with the orders of the court, this Court again in the case of M.C.Mehta V. Union of India observed : (SCC p.311, paras 8-9)

".....clear lapse on the part of NCT and Municipal Corporation. Even if there was no deliberate or wilful disregard for the court orders, there has clearly been a lackadaisical attitude and approach towards them. Though no further action in this matter need be taken for now, but such lethargic attitude if continues may soon become contumacious."

PMD, J C.C.No.327 of 2019

26. It is also of some relevancy to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the Judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs (refer T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad's case SCC p.6, para 5]. The proceedings before the highest court of the land in a public interest litigation, attain even more significance. These are the cases which come up for hearing before the court on a grievance raised by the public at large or public spirited persons. The State itself places matters before the Court for determination which would fall, statutorily or otherwise, in the domain of the executive authority.

9. Respectfully following the above judgment, this court

holds the Respondents/Contemnors as guilty of contempt.

Since the representation of the petitioner has already been

disposed of and the petitioner, if aggrieved by the same, may

have to pursue his legal remedy, no further directions need to

be given on merits of the case.

PMD, J C.C.No.327 of 2019

10. For the act of contempt of Court, this court deems it fit

and proper to impose a fine of Rs.20,000/- to be deducted

equally i.e. @ Rs.10,000/- from the salary of each of the

Respondents/Contemnors and direct the same to be paid to the

petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a