Telangana High Court
Mrs. Timothy T Gonmei vs Mrs. Madhavi on 19 July, 2024
Bench: K.Lakshman, N.Tukaramji
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CONTEMPT CASE No.413 OF 2024
O R D E R:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard learned party-in-person, Sri Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 5 and learned Government
Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 7.
2. This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful and deliberate
violation of the order dated 01.03.2023 in W.P.No.23116 of 2020 and
batch.
3. Vide the aforesaid order, this Court held that the detention and
arrest of the petitioner for seven (07) days was unlawful and she suffered
infringement of her fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards compensation on the State. This
Court directed the Home Department to deposit the said amount before
the Registry of this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of the order, whereafter, it would be open to the
petitioner to withdraw the same from the Registry.
KL,J & NTR,J
4. According to the petitioner, the contemnors failed to deposit
the said amount within the timelines prescribed by this Court in the said
order. Therefore, they have violated the said order willfully and
deliberately.
5. Respondent No.7 has filed counter affidavit contending as
follows:-
i. They have applied for certified copy of the order on 03.03.2023;
ii. Thereafter, they preferred SLP on 08.05.2023 vide SLP (Civil)
Diary No.19662 of 2023;
iii. The said SLP was dismissed on 06.10.2023, as withdrawn;
iv. They have approached the Registry of this Court to deposit the
said amount on 17.10.2023; and the Registry refused to receive the
said amount on the ground that the time granted by this Court had
elapsed;
v. Therefore, they have filed an Interlocutory Application vide
I.A.(SR) No.86685 of 2023, on 01.11.2023 seeking extension of
time and got numbered on 16.12.2023;
KL,J & NTR,J
vi. The said Interlocutory Application was listed before this Court on
04.04.2024 and this Court granted a week's time to respondent
No.7 to deposit the said amount;
vii. Thereafter, respondent No.7 deposited the said amount on
08.04.2024;
viii. The Principal Secretary of Home for Telangana, State Secretariat,
Hyderabad, was shown as respondent No.7 and notice was issued
to him on 22.04.2024;
ix. Therefore, according to respondent No.7, there is no violation,
much less willful or deliberate violation of the order dated
01.03.2023 in W.P.No.23116 of 2020 & batch; and
x. However, if in case, this Court finds that the respondent No.7 had
violated the order of this Court, he tendered his unconditional
apology.
6. Learned party-in-person would contend that on 27.02.2024 this
Court ordered notice to respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the present Contempt
Case. Even then, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court did not send
notices to all the respondents and therefore he has committed willful and
deliberate violation of the said order, dated 27.02.2024.
KL,J & NTR,J
7. Learned party-in-person would further contend that Mr.
Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home cannot appear on
behalf of respondent No.7, without filing Vakalat. Despite receiving and
acknowledging the said notice, respondent No.6 did not enter
appearance. This Court has power to initiate contempt proceedings
against the Registrar (Judicial) suo motu. She has placed reliance on
Section 66 of Cr.P.C. and also Rule 81 (A) of Madras High Court Order.
Respondent No.6 may be set ex-parte.
8. Learned party-in-person also placed reliance on Section 13(A)
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to contend that there is substantial
interference in the dignity of the Court. Therefore, the respondents are
liable for contempt. Mere filing of the SLP and an Interlocutory
Application seeking extension of time granted to respondent No.7 to
deposit the said amount is not sufficient and they have to obtain proper
orders. The unconditional apology tendered by respondent No.7 also
cannot be accepted since respondent No.7 cannot tender apology with
condition.
9. She further placed reliance on the order of this Court in
C.C.No.1034 of 2021, dated 29.04.2022, also relied on Rule 32 (1) of the
Contempt of Court Rules, 1980, and contended that the respondents
KL,J & NTR,J
cannot slap and say sorry. Thus, according to learned party-in-person,
the respondents willfully and deliberately violated the order dated
01.03.2023 in W.P.No.23116 of 2020 & batch and committed contempt.
10. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Home would
contend that there is no willful and deliberate violation of the order dated
01.03.2023 in W.P.No.23116 of 2020 by respondent No.7 and they have
applied for certified copy on 03.03.2023 and on obtaining the same, they
preferred an SLP. Thereafter, they have approached the Registrar of this
Court to deposit the amount awarded by this Court and on refusal by the
Registrar, they filed an Interlocutory application seeking extension of
time and the same was granted on 04.04.2024. Therefore, respondent
No.7 has deposited the said amount of Rs.50,000/- within the time
granted by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2023.
Thus, respondent No.7 has deposited the said amount on 08.04.2024.
Therefore, there is no violation, much less willful and deliberate
violation of the order dated 01.03.2023.
11. The undisputed facts in the present case are that this Court
vide order dated 01.03.2023, in W.P.No.23116 of 2020 having held that
the right of the petitioner under Article 21 of Constitution of India was
infringed; there was illegal detention, directed the Department of Home
KL,J & NTR,J
to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation within six
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Thereafter, this
Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the said amount
from the Registry. Respondent No.7 filed copy application on
03.03.2023 to obtain certified copy of the said order. They preferred an
SLP on 08.05.2023 and the same was dismissed on 06.10.2023. They
have approached the Registry of this Court on 17.10.2023, for the
purpose of depositing the said amount in compliance of the order dated
01.03.2023 and the Registry of this Court refused to receive the same on
the ground that the time granted had elapsed. Therefore, they have filed
an application seeking extension of time granted by this Court on
01.11.2023. The said Interlocutory Application was ordered on
04.04.2024 and this Court granted a week's time to respondents to
deposit the said amount. Accordingly, they have deposited the amount
on 08.04.2024.
12. The time granted by this Court in the order dated 01.03.2023
expired on 17.04.2023. Thus, there is delay in depositing the said
amount in compliance with the order passed by this Court dated
01.03.2023. But, according to respondent No.7, they have applied for
KL,J & NTR,J
certified copy and on obtaining the same, they have preferred an SLP,
which was dismissed on 06.10.2023.
13. We have extended the time to deposit the said amount of
Rs.50,000/- on 04.04.2024 by one week. Within the said period,
respondent No.7 has deposited the said amount on 08.04.2024. There is
no challenge to the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by this Court
extending the time to deposit.
14. Thus, the extension of time granted to respondent No.7 to
deposit the aforesaid amount vide order dated 04.04.2024 itself is
condonation of the said delay by respondent No.7 in depositing the said
amount.
15. Respondent No.7 has also tendered an unconditional
apology to this Court.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgements time
and again categorically held that to punish a contemnor under Sections
10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, there should be deliberate and
willful violation of the order and mere allegation of violation of the order
is not sufficient.
KL,J & NTR,J
17. It is apposite at this juncture of proceedings to refer to the
case in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India 1 wherein
the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court while elucidating on the
contempt jurisdiction held thus:
"42. The contempt of Court is a special jurisdiction to
be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an
act adversely affects the administration of justice or
which tends to impede its course or tends to shake
public confidence in the judicial institutions. This
jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act
complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or
dignity of the Courts. The purpose of contempt
jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of
the Courts of law. It is an unusual type of jurisdiction
combining "the jury, the judge and the hangman" and
it is so because the Court is not adjudicating upon any
claim between litigating parties. This jurisdiction is
not exercised to protect the dignity of an individual
judge but to protect the administration of justice from
being maligned. In the general interest of the
community it is imperative that the authority of
Courts should not be imperilled and there should be
no unjustifiable interference in the administration of
justice. It is a matter between the Court and the
contemner and third parties cannot intervene. It is
exercised in a summary manner in aid of the
. (1998) 4 SCC 409
KL,J & NTR,J
administration of justice, the majesty of law and the
dignity of the Courts. No such act can be permitted
which may have the tendency to shake the public
confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the
administration of justice."
18. In Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana 2, the Apex Court
elucidated on willful disobedience and the relevant paragraph is
extracted herein below:
"9. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') defines "civil
contempt" to mean "wilful disobedience to any
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other
process of a Court."
Where the contempt consists in failure to comply
with or carry out an order of a Court made in favour
of a party, it is a civil contempt. The person or
persons in whose favour such order or direction has
been made can move the Court for initiating
proceeding for contempt against the alleged
contemner, with a view to enforce the right flowing
from the order or direction in question. But such a
proceeding is not like an execution proceeding under
Code of Civil Procedure. The party in whose favour
an order has been passed, is entitled to the benefit of
such order. The Court while considering the issue as
to whether the alleged contemner should be punished
. (1994) 6 SCC 332
KL,J & NTR,J
for not having complied with and carried out the
direction of the Court, has to take into consideration
all facts and circumstances of a particular case. That
is why the framers of the Act while defining civil
contempt, have said that it must be wilful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a Court. Before a
contemner is punished for non-compliance of the
direction of a Court, the Court must not only be
satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment,
decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied
that such disobedience was wilful and intentional.
The civil Court while executing a decree against the
judgment-debtor is not concerned and bothered
whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree,
was wilful. Once a decree has been passed it is the
duty of the Court to execute the decree whatever may
be consequence thereof. But while examining the
grievance of the person who has invoked the
jurisdiction of the Court to initiate the proceeding for
contempt for disobedience of its order, before any
such contemner is held guilty and punished, the Court
has to record a finding that such disobedience was
wilful and intentional. If from the circumstances of a
particular case, brought to the notice of the Court, the
Court is satisfied that although there has been a
disobedience but such disobedience is the result of
some compelling circumstances under which it was
not possible for the contemner to comply with the
KL,J & NTR,J
order, the Court may not punish the alleged
contemner."
19. While reviewing the nature of contempt proceedings, it is
important to examine the acts of the alleged contemnor. The Court has
clarified that while the beneficiary of a Court order is entitled to its
enforcement, the evaluation of whether a contemnor should be punished
for non-compliance involves a comprehensive consideration of all
relevant facts and circumstances. The Contempt of Courts Act specifies
that civil contempt involves willful disobedience of Court order.
Consequently, before a contemnor can be penalized, the Court must
ascertain not only that there has been disobedience but also that such
disobedience was deliberate and intentional.
20. In a contempt proceeding, before a contemnor can be
adjudged guilty and subjected to punishment, the Court must establish
that the disobedience was both willful and intentional. The Court must
make a specific finding to this effect. Furthermore, if the Court, upon
examining the circumstances of a particular case, concludes that
disobedience occurred due to extenuating factors, it retains the discretion
to refrain from punishing the alleged contemnor despite acknowledging
the anomaly, if any.
KL,J & NTR,J
21. In Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi 3, the Apex
Court in a similar view held as under:
"30. In an appropriate case where exceptional
circumstances exist, the Court may also resort to the
provisions applicable in case of civil contempt, in
case of violation/breach of undertaking/ judgment/
order or decree. However, before passing any final
order on such application, the Court must satisfy
itself that there is violation of such judgment, decree,
direction or order and such disobedience is wilful and
intentional. Though in a case of execution of a
decree, the executing Court may not be bothered
whether the disobedience of the decree is wilful or
not and the Court is bound to execute a decree
whatever may be the consequence thereof. In a
contempt proceeding, the alleged contemnor may
satisfy the Court that disobedience has been under
some compelling circumstances, and in that situation,
no punishment can be awarded to him."
xxxx xxxx xxxx
"38. The contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal
in nature, the standard of proof required is in the
same manner as in other criminal cases. The alleged
contemnor is entitled to the protection of all
safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal
jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There
. (2012) 4 SCC 307
KL,J & NTR,J
must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of
administration of justice by a party intentionally to
bring the matter within the ambit of the said
provision. The case should not rest only on surmises
and conjectures. In Debabrata Bandhopadhyaya v.
State of W.B. [AIR 1969 SC 189 : 1969 Cri LJ 401] ,
this Court observed as under: (AIR p. 193, para 9).
"9. A question whether there is contempt of
Court or not is a serious one. The Court is both
the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation.
It behoves the Court to act with as great
circumspection as possible making all
allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties
arising from inveterate practices in Courts and
tribunals. It is only when a clear case of
contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise,
arises that the contemnor must be punished. ...
Punishment under the law of contempt is called
for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard
of one's duty and in defiance of authority. To
take action in an unclear case is to make the law
of contempt do duty for other measures and is
not to be encouraged."(emphasis added)"
Proving the specific intention behind an act or omission is improbable.
Consequently, in such an event, Courts must approach this issue
objectively, presuming intention based on the actions taken, as
individuals are generally presumed to intend the probable consequences
of their actions.
KL,J & NTR,J
22. In Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai
Contractor (deceased) rep. by LRs.4, relied on the principles laid down
by Niaz Mohammad2, Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam
Godha, 5 Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj 6 and also the definition of
'willful' from Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at Page 1599
along with the definition of 'civil contempt' under Section - 2 (b) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Apex Court in paragraph No.56 held
as under:
"56. Hence, the expression or word "wilful" means
act or omission which is done voluntarily or
intentionally and with the specific intent to do
something which the law forbids or with the specific
intent to fail to do something the law requires to be
done, that is to say with bad purpose either Page 44
of 83 to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies
a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a
bad motive or purpose."
23. In this present case, the Department of Home was directed to
deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation within six weeks from the
receipt of the order. On such deposit, this Court permitted the petitioner
to withdraw the amount from the Registry. On 03.03.2023, Respondent
No. 7 applied for a certified copy of the order. Subsequently, on 08.05
. 2023 INSC 805
. (2003) 11 SCC 1
. (2014) 16 SCC 204
KL,J & NTR,J
2023, they preferred a Special Leave Petition vide SLP (Civil) Diary No.
19662 of 2023, which was dismissed on 06.10. 2023.
24. Respondent No. 7 then approached the Registry of this Court
on 17.10.2023, intending to deposit the amount in compliance with the
order dated 01.03.2023. However, the Registry refused to accept the
deposit, citing the expiration of the allotted time to deposit.
Consequently, Respondent No.7 filed an Interlocutory Application on
01.10.2023, seeking an extension of time initially granted by this Court
for depositing the compensation awarded.
25. The said Interlocutory Application was subsequently allowed
on 04.04 2024, wherein this Court granted an additional (01) week for
the respondents to deposit the amount. Complying with this extension,
the amount was deposited on 08.04.2024.
26. In light of the aforesaid discussions, it thus becomes clear that
for bringing an action under the ambit of civil contempt, there has to be a
willful and deliberate disobedience to the order or willful breach of the
order. The contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should
be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
27. As discussed supra, vide order dated 01.03.2023, this Court
directed respondent No.7 to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/-.
KL,J & NTR,J
There is no direction to respondent Nos.2 to 6 and the direction is only to
respondent No.7. Therefore, when there is no direction to respondent
Nos.2 to 6, committing of contempt by them does not arise.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered
view that, the petitioner has failed to make out a case of willful,
deliberate and intentional disobedience of any of the directions given by
this Court. This is not a fit case to exercise the said jurisdiction by
punishing the respondents. On the contrary, we find that the respondents
had taken recourse to the legal remedy available to them under
Constitution.
29. In the result, this Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
Contempt Case shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
_________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
19th July, 2024
SA
