Tirupathi vs Pushpanjali Country Resort And 2 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1314 Tel

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                  AND
    HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

           C.A.Nos.20, 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25 of 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:          (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


     All these Contempt Appeals are being disposed of

by way of this common order as the issue raised in all

these cases one and the same.


      2.    For convenience, the facts in C.A.No.20 of

2019 are hereunder discussed.


      3.    C.A.No.20 of 2019 is filed aggrieved by the

orders     passed    by    the       learned         Single         Judge     in

C.C.No.2077     of   2017         dt.27-09-2019                wherein       the

learned Single Judge has allowed the Contempt Case

along with batch of cases filed by the unofficial

respondents and sentenced the appellants herein to

civil imprisonment for six months each in accordance

with `the procedure as set out under Rule 32 of the

A.P. High Court Rules under the Contempt of Courts

HCJ & AKS,J C.A.Nos.20 of 2019 & batch

Act, 1971 apart from paying a fine of Rs.2,000/- each.

The subsistence allowance was fixed at Rs.400/- per

day and further directed that the contemnors/

appellants shall pay exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- to

Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad.

4. Heard the learned Advocate General

appearing for the appellants and Sri V.Ravikiran Rao,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri V.Rohit,

learned counsel for the 1st respondent

5. It has been contended by the appellants that

the unofficial respondent had filed W.P.No.33556 of

2015 with the following prayer:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 4 to 6 in interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner resort including playing game of "Rummy" (13 cards) by the members in the petitioner resort premises without any valid reasons and without any authority under law as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Apex Court and also contrary to provisions of

HCJ & AKS,J C.A.Nos.20 of 2019 & batch

AP Gaming Act 1974 and the Rules made thereunder and pass such further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

and the learned Single Judge, by following the orders

passed in W.P.No.30597 of 2014 and batch of cases

dt.29-10-2015, was pleased to dispose of the Writ

Petition with the following directions:

"1. The respondent police authorities shall not interfere with the card game of rummy (13 card game) whatever be the stakes;

2. The petitioner shall install video cameras and record the entire recreational activities in the resort and preserve the said data at least for a period of fortnight so that the police can check the footage. The said C.C. cameras shall be connected with the jurisdictional police station and the Office of the Superintendent of Police for observation by the police to find out as to whether members of the resort are indulging in the activity of gambling. If any of the gaming places is not covered by C.C. cameras, it is for the police to take action.

3. The police are entitled to enter into the premises of the petitioner's resort for taking action as per law in the event of there being any violation of the provisions of law by the petitioner and the petitioner shall not cause any hindrance to the police in exercising their statutory powers; and

4. This order would not come in the way of the respondents from taking action as per law.

HCJ & AKS,J C.A.Nos.20 of 2019 & batch

5. Any deviation of the above guidelines by the petitioner's resort will be construed as violation of these orders."

The learned Advocate General had further contended

that the A.P. Gaming Act, 2020, was amended and

making the game of Rummy (13 cards game) also as

punishable offence and as per the directions of the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.33556 of 2015

dt.02-11-2015, the appellants were directed not to

interfere with the card game of Rummy (13 cards

game), however, permitted the police to enter into the

premises of the unofficial respondents for taking action

as per law in the event of there being any violation of

the provisions of law by the unofficial respondent and

the unofficial respondent shall not cause any

hindrance to the police in exercising of their statutory

powers.

6. The Advocate General had further contended

that as per the amended Gaming Act, 2020, the

appellants had conducted a raid as they have received

HCJ & AKS,J C.A.Nos.20 of 2019 & batch

relevant information from the known sources that

heavy betting was being conducted in the premises of

unofficial respondent. Accordingly, a raid was

conducted on 08-04-2017 and lot of money was also

recovered from the said premises. The respondent had

filed contempt contending that the appellants had

violated the orders passed by the learned Single Judge

in W.P.No.30597 of 2014 dt.29-102015 and the

learned Single Judge had considered the entire case

and convicted the appellants for contempt under the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and directed that the

appellants be sentenced for imprisonment for a period

of six months. The Advocate General had further

contended that the learned Single Judge had

conducted a roving enquiry and enlarged the scope of

contempt proceedings by considering the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State

of Behar1, and found fault that the contemnors have

(2014) 8 S.C.C. 273

HCJ & AKS,J C.A.Nos.20 of 2019 & batch

not followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court

and conducted raid against the respondents.

7. The learned Advocate General had further

contended that the contempt jurisdiction is very

limited and that the learned Single Judge ought to

have seen whether the appellants had entered the

premises of the respondents in order to discharge their

duties in curbing the illegal activity which was going

on and the learned Single Judge also failed to

appreciate that the orders in W.P.No.33550 of 2015

dt.02-11-2015 itself authorized the police to enter into

the premises of the unofficial respondent's premises

for taking action as per the law in the event of there

being any violation of the provisions of law by the

unofficial respondent and in view of the observations

made in the Writ Petition, the appellants have entered

into the premises of unofficial respondent and

conducted a raid as the unofficial respondent had

indulged in illegal activities for betting and the cases

HCJ & AKS,J C.A.Nos.20 of 2019 & batch

were also booked. It is not that no cases were booked

against the unofficial respondent as admittedly, the

unofficial respondent has indulged in illegal and

betting activity and that is why the appellants have

entered into the premises of the unofficial respondent

and booked cases against its resort. Therefore, the

appellants cannot be punished for discharging their

legitimate duties. Therefore, learned Advocate General

had further contended that appropriate orders be

passed in the appeals by setting aside the orders

passed in the Contempt Cases by the learned Single

Judge.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the unofficial

respondent No.1 had contended that the appellants

had conducted three raids in all. The first raid was

conducted on 12-11-2016, the second raid was

conducted on 29-11-2016 and the third raid was

conducted on 08-04-2017. The appellants had

deliberately violated the court orders and repeatedly

HCJ & AKS,J C.A.Nos.20 of 2019 & batch

conducted raids in spite of the unofficial respondent

having armed with an order in W.P.No.33556 of 2015

dt.02-11-2015 and the learned Single Judge has

rightly sentenced the appellants to civil imprisonment

for a period of six months. Therefore, there are no

merits in the Contempt Appeals and the same are

liable to be dismissed.

9. This Court, having considered the rival

submissions made by the parties, is of the considered

view that a perusal of the orders passed in

W.P.No.33556 of 2015 dt.02-11-2015 itself authorized

the appellants to enter into the premises of the

unofficial respondent-resort for checking as per law in

the event of there being any violation of the provisions

of law and the appellants have entered into the

premises of the unofficial respondent and conducted

raid and also found that the unofficial respondent was

indulged in illegal activity and the learned Single

Judge ought not to have sentenced the appellants to

HCJ & AKS,J C.A.Nos.20 of 2019 & batch

civil imprisonment for a period of six months, more so,

when the appellants were discharging their official

duties.

10. Hence, this Court is of the considered view

that the orders of the learned Single Judge in

sentencing the appellants to civil imprisonment for a

period of six months and consequential directions of

the learned Single Judge are not inconsonance with

the original orders passed by the learned Single Judge

in W.P.No33556 of 2015 dt.02-11-2015. In view of the

above observations, this Court is of the considered

view that the orders of the learned Single Judge erred

in sentencing the appellants to civil imprisonment and

other further directions are liable to be set aside and

accordingly the impugned order passed in the

Contempt Cases is set aside.

11. Accordingly, all the Contempt Appeals are

allowed setting aside the impugned order

HCJ & AKS,J C.A.Nos.20 of 2019 & batch

dt.27-09-2019 in C.C.Nos.1181 and 2077 of 2017. No

costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

_________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 21.03.2022 kvr