Allowed

Sarella Satyanarayana v. Gupudi Subrahmanyam

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Apr 2024CC/401/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt proceeding alleging willful disobedience of an interim order restraining the respondents from taking action on the petitioner's property. The Court found the respondents guilty of contempt for demolishing structures and failing to pass the mandatory speaking order, imposing simple imprisonment and fines on them while suspending the order for appeal.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 3 are to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 each. Execution of imprisonment suspended for four months to prefer an appeal.

Sarella Satyanarayana Vs Gupudi Subrahmanyam — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY .THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 401 OF 2023

¶7

Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of^CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfilehereinthe} High Court may be pleased to punish the contemners under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for intentionally and willfully^{disobedienceofthe} interim orders dated 30-06-2022 made in W.P.No.18481 of 2022.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sarella Satyanarayana, S/o late China Veera Swamy Aged^about75 years, Agricultural Coolie, Residing at Chennada Village, Razole Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

¶12

Gupudi Subrahmanyam, Panchayat Secretary, Chennadam Gram Panchayat Razole mandal. Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema^District

¶13

Badugu Srinivasa Rao, Sarpanch, Chennadam Gram Panchayat Chennadam Village, Razole Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

¶14

B.Durga Prasad, S/o not known, Chennadam YSRCP Incharge, Chennadam Village, Razole Mandal, Dr.B.R Ambedkar Konaseema District

¶15

(RR 2 and 3 impleaded as per court order dated 18/10/2023 vide I.A. No.1 of 2023 IN CC No.401 of 2023)

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s Akumarthi Pushpa Leela

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri N Srihari

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas The Court made the following:

¶20

APHC010032442023

¶21

■JS?

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶23

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

[3329]

¶25

FRIDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶28

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 401/2023

¶29

Between:

¶30

Sarella Satyanarayana

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

Gupudi Subrahmanyam and Others

¶34

...CONTEMNOR(S)

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

1.AKUMARTHI PUSHPA LEELA

¶37

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶38

1.N SRIHARI

¶39

2.PONNADA SREE WAS

¶40

The court made the following order:-

¶41

and willful 1. This Contempt Case is filed alleging an intentional disobedience of the order dated 30.06.2022 in W.P.No.18481^of2022.

¶42

W.P.No.18481 of 2022 is filed to declare the action of the 4 th respondent-Grampanchayat in trying to demolish the structures and

¶43

Mv^j C.C.No.401 of 2023

¶44

¶45

dispossess the petitioner from his property of an extent of Ac.0.02 1/2 cents situated in Sy.No.1013 of Chennada Village Razole Mandal, Konaseema District. without considering his explanation dated 16.05.2022 to the notice dated 05.05.2022 issued by the 4*^ respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶46

On 30.06.2022 this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 4*^ respondent-Grampanchayat to consider the explanation dated 16.05.2022 submitted by the petitioner and pass speaking^ordersafter affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Till such time, the respondents are restrained from initiating any action against the petitioner’s subject property.

¶47

He submitted that when the petitioner made a representation along with a copy of the order for grant of permission for construction of the house on the said subject land in pursuance of the notice dated 05.09.2022, despite it, either action was taken by the respondent or any order was passed on the reply submitted by the petitioner. In turn, the respondent recommended to the Tahsildar, Razole for cancellation of the house site patta duly granted in favour of the petitioner’s father in the year 1986.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner was granted a house site patta in the year 1986, registered

¶49

NV,J C.t;.No.401of 2023

¶50

¶51

based on the resolution passed that the Gram Sabha.^{Basinguponthe} said resolution of the Gram Sabha, the Tahsildar, Razole, passed an order on 08.12.2022 handing over possession of the^{propertytothe} Gram Panchayat. In pursuance of the said orders, the^respondents issued a notice dated 12.12.2022 directing the petitioner^nottomakeany construction on the said land. The said proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, Razole and the consequential notice were challenged before this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.41265 of 2022, wherein^{thisHon’bleCourt} suspended the said proceedings vide orders dated 22.12.2022.

¶52

It is alleged that after receipt of the said order,^{therespondents} instigated the Sarpanch since the proceedings were^{suspendedbythis} Hon’ble Court and there was no possibility to grab^{thelandfromthe} petitioner.

¶53

On 06.01.2023 at about 11-00 p.m. at the instance of tbe respondents, Badugu Srinivasa Rao, Bayya Durga Prasad and their henchmen came to petitioner’s land and demolished the^{construction,} without issuing any notice and in the absence of the^{petitionerandhis} family members. When the family members of the petitioner^obstructed the demolition, henchmen of the Sarpanch beat/thrashed them indiscriminately.

¶54

Nv,j C.C.No.401 of 2023

¶55

¶56

The respondents intentionally harassed the petitioner and forcibly attempted to grab the land from the petitioner without complying with the orders of this Court. It is also contended that in order to avoid the consequences that emanate from the violation of the orders of this Hon’ble Court for demolition of the structures without passing a final order on the notice issued by the respondent dated 05.05.2022, the respondent issued an ante-dated notice i.e., on 06.01.2023, and on the very same day they demolished the structures, though the matter was posted for hearing dated 10.01.2023.

¶57

Questioning the intentional violation and disobedience of the orders of the Hon’ble Court, the present contempt case is filed.

¶58

The 1®* respondent filed counter affidavit denying the material allegations, wherein para 6, 7, 8 and 10 it is stated as follows; “(i)lt is submitted that the Tahsildar, Razole has addressed a letter to me on 05.12.2022 vide ROC No/1428/2022 directing me to take over the subject land. In view of the proceedings of the Tahsildar, a notice was issued on 12.12.2022 directing the petitioner to stop all construction activities. Subsequently, the petitioner has approached^the Hon’ble High Court through W.P.No.41265 of 2022 wherein this Hon ble Court has suspended the proceedings vide orders dated 22.12.2022.

¶59

(ii)lt is submitted that whilst the matter stood thus, the petitioner has started construction of a building in an extent

¶60

NV,J C.C.No.401 of 2023

¶61

¶62

of Ac.0.03 cents in R.S.No.1013 of Chennadam village. It is pertinent to note that since the construction was being^done with no permission, I issued a notice to the petitioner^herein on 06.01.2023 directing them to stop the construction^since the issue is pending before this Hon’ble High Court. It is respectfully submitted that the notice was only issued to temporarily halt the construction since the case in W.P.No.41265 of 2022 was pending before this Hon’ble Court,

¶63

(iii) It is respectfully submitted that in view of^theordersof this Hon’ble High Court, I have willfully refrained from interfering into the petitioner’s property in R.S.No.1013^of Chennadam village. It is submitted that it has come to my knowledge that violating the orders of this Hon’ble^Court, some individuals have approached the petitioner’s property on 06.01.2023 at night around 11 pm and demolished^the construction undertaken in the petitioner’s property. It is submitted that I have neither approached the petitioner’s property nor gave any order of demolition. I have not initiated any demolition proceedings and the activity^was done without any knowledge,

¶64

(iv) It is respectfully submitted that the demolition had happened on 06.01.2023 at night. I was unaware that^such an illegal act was being undertaken by some individuals. It has come to my knowledge in the morning on 07.01.2023 that such an act has happened and I was unpleasantly shocked to find out myself.”

¶65

NV,J C.C.No.401 of 2023

¶66

¶67

The 2"^ and 3'^'^ respondents filed counter affidavits denying the

¶68

material allegations in para 7 it is stated as.follows:-

¶69

“The issue involved in this contempt case is without passing the final orders to the notice dated 05.05.2022,^at the instance of the 1®* respondent herein, this respondent and respondent No.3 along with some supporters demolished the structures but as per the counter of^this respondent herein, new facts are pleaded which are^not stated by the respondent herein in his official capacity and there is no records produced by this respondent^herein and the main intention as per the counter is that if^araised the construction after removal of old thatched house,^the panchayat office is blocked only but there is no inconvenience to the general public and as per the counter, their intention is that to dispossess me from the said^land and they will enjoy the said land which is adjacent^tothe panchayat office. He submit that for avoiding the consequences of the further proceedings in this contempt case this respondent herein intentionally pleaded several facts which are not borne out of the records as well as the counter of the 1®^ respondent herein and requested to dismiss the contempt case against them”.

¶70

The learned counsel for the petitioner filed reply^tothecounter

¶71

affidavits filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in support of his contentions.

¶72

¶73

NV,J C.C.No.401of2023

■si V

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned^counselfor the respondents and perused the material available^onrecord.

¶78

Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is apposite^tonarratethe legal position for better appreciation of the case and application of law.

¶79

As per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,

¶80

‘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”.

¶81

In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and^{Ors^the} Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that for holding a person to have committed contempt, it must be shown that there was wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court.^But it was indicated that even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt.

¶82

In The District and Sessions Judge vs. The Executive Engineer, R & B^, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court^{ofAndhraPradesh} observed as extracted hereunder:

¶83

‘‘8. One of the well settled principles of law is that^itisnot only disobedience of the judicial order of the Court or interference with the judicial proceedings, which constitutes Contempt of Court, interference in exercise of

¶84

2 1996 (2) ALD Cri 844

¶85

1 AIR 1999 SC 3215

¶86

NV,J C.C.No.401of2023

¶87

m
4^

¶88

¶89

administrative power by the Court also is a Contempt^of Court."

¶90

The prefatory remarks of the Hon’ble Supreme Court^inChandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumai^, as extracted hereunder would well project the importance of the issue under consideration in this^{suomotucontempt} case:

¶91

"1 The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may^give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters^ofjudicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken^careof to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so^alsoto enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction^of all concerned.

¶92

Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the^course of judicial proceedings; or if anything Is done with^oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt^with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake^the faith of people in the system of administration of^justice.

¶93

At Para Nos. 7 & 8. the Hon’ble Apex Court observed^asextracted hereunder;

¶94

3 AIR 1995 SC 1795

¶95

NV,J C.C.No.401of 2023

¶96

¶97

¶98

“1. Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates court's order, but also to keep the^streamof justice clear and pure (which i/i/'as highlighted more^thantwo and half centuries ago by Lord Hardwicke, LC. in St. James Evening Post case, 1742-2 Atk 469) so that the parties who approach the courts to receive justice^donot have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples”

¶99

The purpose of contempt jurisdiction was summarised as below by Lord Morris in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers^1974A.C.273 at page 302:

¶100

“In an ordered community courts are established for^the pacific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance^of law and order. In the general interests of the community^itis imperative that the authority of the courts should^notbe Imperiled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for their own dignity: it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognized^courtsof the land are so flouted and their authority wanes and^is supplanted. ”

¶101

Nv,j C.C.No.401 of 2023

¶102

¶103

To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who Malge in immorai acts iike perjury, pre-variation and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which ,/ if would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those approach it in the hope that truth wouid uitimateiy prevait. Peopie wouid have faith in courts when they wouid find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed L in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts.

¶104

¶105

In Maninderjit Singh Bitta Union of india\ the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held as extracted hereunder:

¶106

"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.

¶107

¶108

In .TN. Godavarman Thirumuipad v’s. Ashok Khof, the Division

¶109

Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as extracted hereunder:

¶110

It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or nonobedience by a passive and dormant t conduct leads to the

¶111

" (2012) 1 see 273 " (2006) 5 see 1

¶112

NV,J C.C.No.40lDf2023

¶113

¶114

same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the 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 sacrediy entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts^havetobe respected and protected at all costs. ”

¶115

In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors®,^the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Contempt of Courts Act has been introduced in the statute-book for securing confidence of people in the administration of justice. If an order passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of^such order would amount to contempt of Court. There can be no laxity^{insuchasituation} because otherwise the Court orders would become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the^Court'sorder would not be a permissible defence.

¶116

¶117

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pats! Rajnikant Dhulabhai^and others vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and others^ held that, punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and

¶118

®2002 CriLJ 1814 "air 2008 SC 3016

¶119

NV,J C.C.No.401 of 2023 1^

¶120

¶121

normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold^{andmaintainthe} dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call^{forsuchextreme} step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to^{takestrictviewunder} the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt.

¶122

In T. Girija Kumari vs. K. Venkateswara Rao®, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted hereunder:

¶123

“9. Contempt jurisdiction is sparingly exercised by the Courts because it is an extraordinary jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is invoked usually not with the object of punishing a contemnor, but for protecting the dignity^and authority of the Court. 10. Obedience of the orders of the Courts is foremost and sacred for maintenance of rule of law. Disobedience of the orders strikes at the very roots of rule of law and^shakesthe foundation on which the judicial system rests. Tolerance^to disobedience is not in the interest of the judicial system because it will lose the confidence of those who have succeeded in the Courts.

¶124

An order passed by a Court is sacrosanct and should be implemented. Implementation of an order cannot be

¶125

MANU/AP/0136/2012

¶126

NV,J C.C.No.401of2023

¶127

¶128

refused under any pretext, so long as it remains in force and is not eclipsed or set aside in the hierarchy of remedies. Even if there is some difficulty in implementing the order, parties should approach the Court for appropriate clarifications. Otherwise, it would amount to disobedience to the Court.”

¶129

Admittedly, this Court passed a final order in W.P.No.18481 of 2022 on 30.06.2022, directing the 4*^ respondent-Grampanchayat to consider the explanation dated 16.05.2022 submitted by the petitioner: This Court also further directed the respondents not to initiate any action against the petitioner regarding the subject property. The 1st respondent, the Panchayat Secretary, even after receipt of the order of this Court without complying and without passing any speaking^order as directed. issued a notice once again with the same allegations on 06.01.2023, referring to the proceedings/letter of the Tahsildar, Razole, dated 05.12.2022, asking the petitioner for a submission of an explanation; otherwise, action would be initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act 1994. Having issued proceedings/notice for demolition within 24 hours pursuant to the proceedings^{oftheTahsildar} on 06.01.2023, he intentionally did not choose to pass speaking orders as directed on 30.06.2022.

¶130

Nv,J C.C.No.401of 2023

¶131

¶132

¶133

A report was filed by the wife of the petitioner, alleging^thatatthe behest of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, some of their henchmen demolished the subject house property, and the petitioner’s family also suffered injuries. Respondent No. 1, being the Panchayat Secretary, did not lodge a report with the police about the illegal demolition and dispossession or submit any report to the higher authorities, which indicates that at his behest, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, along with others, demolished the subject property.

¶134

It is the duty of the 1st and 2nd respondents, being the execution authorities of the Gram Panchayat, to follow the order of this Court dated 30.06.2022, wherein the Gram Panchayat is .specifically^directedto pass a speaking order considering the explanation of the petitioner. Without doing so, issuing another notification dated 06.01.2023 and allowing the demolition by henchmen, including respondent No. 3, is nothing but flouting the orders of this Hon’ble High Court.

¶135

However, the respondents willfully flouted the orders passed by this Court,' fully aware of the consequences of such violation the respondents might have been under the impression that they need not to obey the law and are not required to implement the orders of this Court.

¶136

As and when this Court in categorical terms directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass speaking

¶137

NV,J C.C.No.401 of 2023

¶138

¶139

orders thereon, the respondents’ ctaim is that the writ petitioner conveniently suppressed various material facts and^{filedthepresentcase} only to drag on the contempt proceedings and is nothing but willful violation of the orders of this Court.

¶140

For the above mentioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 willfully disobeyed^{theorderofthis} Court dated 30.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.18481 of 2022^andthereby, they are found guilty of contempt. As such, they are^{liableforpunishment} under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

¶141

In the result, contempt case is allowed, directing^{therespondent} No.1 Gupudi Subrahmanyam (Gram Panchayat), respondent No.2 Badugu Srinivas Rao (Sarpananch) and respondent No.3 B.Durga Prasad (local leader) who demolished with active assistance of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 undergo simple imprisonment^{foratermofsix} (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each (Rupees^twothousand only).

¶142

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if^any, shall stand closed.

¶143

Date; 19.04.2024 kik

¶144

NV,J C.C.No.401 of 2023

¶145

¶146

After dictating the above order, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4/Contemnors requested this Court to suspend the above order, so as to enable them to prefer an appeal. 30. At request of the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4/ Contemnors, the above order is suspended for a period of four (04) months 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 Nos.2 to 4/Contemnors shall surrender before Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 19.08.2024 before 05.00 p.m to undergo sentence.

¶147

SD/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTf^R

¶148

//TRUE COPY//

¶149