Dismissed

V. Chakradhar Reddy v. G Raveen Kumar

Telangana HC2 Mar 2020LPA/1/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letter Patent Appeal challenged a Single Judge's order directing authorities to decide on regularization applications in a contempt case. The Bench held that under Rule 27 of A.P. High Court Rules and inherent powers, the Court can pass necessary directions to ensure implementation of orders and that the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneou petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

V. Chakradhar Reddy Vs G Raveen Kumar — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO: 1 OF 2020

¶6

Appeal Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act and under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the order (Judgment and order ) dated 03-01-2020 made in C.C. No. 472 ot 2017 in W.P. No. 18999 of 2016.

¶7

Between:

¶8

V. Chakradhar Reddy, S/o Sri V. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. H.No. B-'1 160, N.G.O's Colony, Vanasthalipura, Hyderabad.

¶9

G. Dayanand Reddy, S/o Late G. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. Flat No.307,5th Floor, Aditya Arcade lshaq Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad.

¶10

Shankulatha Reddy, W/o G. Dayanand Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Housewife, FVo Flat No 307, Sth Floor, Aditya Arcade, lshaq Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad

¶11

E. Vishnulatha Reddy, W/o E. Srinivas Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o FIat No 307, sth Floor Aditya Arcade, lshaq Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad.

¶12

G. Krupanand Reddy, S/o Late G. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 51 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 1 6-1 1-730, Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

G. Jyothi, W/o. G. Krupanand Reddy, Aged aboul 42 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o H No 16-11-730, Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

R. Vara Lakshmi, W/o. R. Venkat Reddy, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 1-11-26, Bcwenpally, Secunderabad.

¶15

A. Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. A. Laxma Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o, H. No. 1B-4-518/A, Aliabad, Hyderabad.

¶16

Atmaram Ailani, S/o. Vishandas Ailani, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 15-8-134, 135 and 208, 3rd Floor, Begum Bazar. Hyderabad.

¶17

10.Smt. Lakshmi Devi Ailani, W/o Atmaram Ailani, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business, Ryo.^{'15-8-134, '135} and 208, 3rd Flcor, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶18

Prakash Kumar Ailani, S/o Atmaram Ailani, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, Ryo. 15-8-134, 135 and 208, 3rd Floor, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶19

Smt. Jaya P Ailani, W/o Prakash Kumar, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 15-B-134, 135 and 208, 3rd Floor, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶20

'13.Smt Shallu B Ailani, W/o Late Bharat Kumar Ailani, Aged about 32 years Occ Business, R/o. 15-B-134, 135 and 298, 3rd Floor, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad

¶21

14.Smt. Laveena, D/o Atmaram Ailani, Aged about 32^years; Occ.^Business, R/o. 15-B-134, 135 and 208, 3rd Floor, Begum^{Ba:rar,Hyderabad.} ...APPELLANT(S)

¶22

AND

¶23

G Raveen Kumar, S/o Late G. Srisailam, Aged about^{lj2 y,:ars,Occ.} Business, R/o. H. No.5-4-.55, Bhavani Colony, Rajenrlranagar, Hyderabarl - 30.

¶24

G.S. Mallikarjun, S/o Late G. Srisailam, Aged about 31^years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No.5-4-55, Bhavani Colony, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 30.

¶25

Janaradhan Reddy, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner,^Agect major, Occ. Commissioner GHMC, Hyderabad

¶26

Sri K. Srinivas, S/o K. Mallaiah, Aged about 49^years, )cc. Asst City Planner, GHI\4C Circle No. 5, South Zone, Sardar Mal^al Charminar, Hyderabarl.

¶27

( Respondents No. 3 and 4 are not necessary parties)

¶28

...ttESPONDENTS

¶29

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the c rcurnstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Cour: may be^pleased to suspend the order of the learned Single Judge in C.C.No. 47 2' o'f 2017 in and W.P.M.P. No. 2Ii305 of 2016 in W.P. No. 18999 of 2016 drrted. 03-01-2020 so also any order^{pi:ssed pursuant} thereto.

¶31

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶32

Petition under Section 15'l CPC^praying that for the reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma) be^pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No. 472 of 2017 in W.P.l,4.P No. 23305 of 2016 in W.P. No. 18t)99 of 2016 pending before the learned t ingle Judge of this Honourable Cou.t.

¶33

lA NO: 3 OF 2020

¶34

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that for tlre reason statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to take on record the copy of counter filed by GHI\ilC as Resptndent No. 1 in WP No. 18999 of 20'1 6, in the interest of^justice.

¶35

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ANAND KUMAR KAPOOR

¶36

counsel for the Respondent: SRI T. RAJINIKANTH REDI Y

¶37

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶38

¶39

HCJ & AAR,J LPA No. I /2020

¶40

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Abhishel< Redd-v)

¶41

The present Letter Patent Appeal is filed against the common Order, dated 03.01.2020, passed by a learned Single Judge of this High Court in C.C.No.472 of 2Ol7 and W.P.No. 18999 of 2016.

¶42

The appellants herein are arrayed as respondent Nos.3 to 16 in C.C.No.472 of 2017, and as respondent Nos.4 to L7 in W.P.No.18999 of 2016.

¶43

The learned Single Judge by common order, dated 03.Ol.2O2O, passed in C.C.No.472 of 2017 and W.P.No.18999 of 2016 has directed the respondent No. 1 in the Contempt Case uiz., The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), to take a decision on the application filed by respondents No.4 to 17 in the Writ Petition No.18999 of 2016 for regularization under B.R.S. Scheme, which \vas notified vide G.O.Ms.No.152, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M. 1 ) Department, dated 02.11 .2015, and to communicate the said decision to the Court. Aggrieved by the said direction, the appellants herein have filed the present L.P.A.

¶44

The brief facts of the case are that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein had filed the writ petition complaining about the lapse on the part of the official respondents in not taking action on the illegal construction been made by the appellants herein (respondents in W.P.No.18999 of 2016). The learned Single Judge, on 1O.O8.2016, in W.P.M.P.No.23305 of 2016 in W.P.No.18999 of 2016, had passed the following Order:

¶45

Since the application of respondents 4 to 11 under BRS is pending consideration before the I"r respondent and since there is no dispute that the construction made by respondents 4 to 11 is an illegal construction, pending further orders, respondents 4 to 11 are

¶46

¶47

HC"I & AAR,J LPA No 1/2020

¶48

restrained lrom putting the subject construction to 1ny use until further,rrders."

¶49

The respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein have filed Contempt Case alleging that the official respondents, ln spit? ol the orders, dated 10.08.1)016, passed in W.P.M.P.No.23305 of 2016, have not taken any action and the appellants are continuing tr drr business in the said prernise s. On O3.O1.2O2O, the Contempt Cz.se and the Writ Petition r.vere posted and the learned Single Jur lge has passed following Commt n O rde r:

¶50

"Fleard the matter in^part.

¶51

Within one (01) week from today, the 1"t resp rnde nt in the Contemot Case viz., the Commissioner, Greater Hyderarad Municipal Corporarion (G.H.M.C.), shall take a decision on the app ication of respondent Nos.4 to 17 for regularization under B.R.S.Scheme notified vicle G.O.Ms.No. 152, Municipal Administrat on & Urban Developrnent (M.1) Department, dated 02.11.2015, and conrmunicate the said de, ision ro this Courl.

¶52

The Registry is directed to issue copy of this orc.er to Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Greater fl]'derabad Municipal Corporation (C.H.M, C.).

¶53

Pc,st the Contempt Case along with Writ Petition on 24.01 .2020 "

¶54

It is argued by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantsr that the^jurisdiction of the Court und :r the Contempt of Courts Act, l97l , is very narrow, when the c )ml)1aint of the respondent Nos. L and 2 herein before the Court was that the official respondents ere not taking any action and the appe lants herein are continuing u,ith the business activity in the premi;es in question. The learned Sringle Judge has passed the impugned orrier, which is beyond the^jurisCiction of the Contempt Court. He rce the present L.P.A. is llled to set aside the same. The learned Counsel for the appellants hrrs relied on the decisions reportt d in SUDHIR

¶55

¶56

HC.I & AAIi,J LPA No. I /2020

¶57

VASUDEVA v. M.GEORGE RAVISHEI(ARANI, MAHACHANDRA PRASAD SINGH (DR.) v. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR LEGISLATM COUNCIL2, NEWSPAPERS LTD. v. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL U.P.3, and GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF v. SUBHASH CHANDRA YADAV4 to buttress his case. It is pointed out that the Court while dealing with matters under the Contempt of Court Act, has to see as to whether the orders passed by it are wilfully, deliberately violated or not, and cannot pass further orders in furtherance of the earlier order. The scope of the Contempt is very limited and the Court has to see whether there is deliberate or wilful disobedience of the orders passed, by the authority or person against whom the order is passed, in the absence of the same, the Court cannot pass any further or fresh orders in the contempt case. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is beyond the scope of the^jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶58

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently argued that the appellants herein, in gross violation of the orders of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.M.P.No.23305 of 2016, are illegally continuing with the business activities in the premises in question. In spite of the directions given by the learned Single Judge earlier to take action, the official respondents are not acting on the same. Hence, left with no other alternate remedy, they were constrained to file the Contempt Case. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge is not only legally sustainable, but the same is also rvithin the^jurisdiction of the High Court. In view of Rule 27 of the A.P.High Court Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Subordinate CoLlrts and of the High

¶59

'12014)^{3 scc 373} ' t2OO4l a SCC 747

¶60

'^{AIR r957 s.c.532}

¶61

o (1988) 2 scc 3sl

¶62

¶63

HC.rin A]\R. l LI'.\ No I //2021

¶64

Court under tht' Contempt of Courts Act, 797 7, tl is Hon'ble High Court is having rrmple^jurisdiction to pass any order in the Contempt Case. Hence. the learned counsel sought for dismis sal of the L.P.A. filed by the aF pe lants herein.

¶65

Heard Mr.Anand Kumar Kapoor, the l:arrred Counsel appearing for tre appellants, and Mr. T.Rajinika nth Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶66

As scen from the record, the impugned ordlr in the present appeal is onll a direction given to the official responCents to dispose of the applica tio I made for regularisation of the ille gal construction made by the appellants herein pending under the B.R.S., and to intimate the s,aicl decision to the Court. It is incoml,reh ensible as to how the appellarts herein are aggrieved by the said direction. Though the learned C ounsel for the appellants has veheme rtly argued that such directiorr cc,uld not had been issued by the learr red Single Judge as it is beyonrl the powers vested in the Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 197 L, the learned Counsel has not ans"vered the query put by the Corrrt and has argued only on the technical maintainability of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in a 3or,tempt Case.

¶67

Though there is no quarrel or dispute u'i.h legard to the propositions of law laid by the Hon'ble Suprem: C)ourt in the decisions relie d hy the learned Counsel for the appell lntr;. But, these decisions do '-rot deal with the Rule specific to the State of Andhra Pradesh (rrow Telangana) i.e. Rule 27 of the A.P.Higlr Court Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Subordinate C lurts and ol the High Court urrder the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 u,trich reads as follows:

¶68

|the Court mdg poss such ord.ers as \he Justice of the cdse requires,

¶69

¶70

HCJ & AAR,J LPA No.l /2020

¶71

1 1. This Rule 27 is specific to the State of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana). Hence, the^judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the appellant are not applicable to the lacts of the present case. Even in the absence of this specific Rule, it is trite to state that the High Court does have the power to pass orders in the interest of justice.

¶72

In Sita Ram V. Balbir @ Balis the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case where respondents-contemnor had admitted into the Hospital only rvith a vierv to subvert the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Court and the role of the hospital, and the doctors, has observed as under:

¶73

.... The theory that the hospital ruas trapped bg the designs of the respondent is tt mere ege-wosh atld uJe reject the satle, Thus, the tnescapable conclusion is thot the hospital extended protection and asAlunl to the respondent to defeat the Order passed bg this Court as well as those passed bg the TriaL Court and therebA obstructed admintstratton of^justice .

¶74

.... Questions that aise are: (1) whether a person, who is not bound by a direction issued by the Court coutd be held guitty for committtng contempt of court for his conduct in either directlA aiding and abetting uiolation on part oJ the person who is bound by such dtrection; and (2) uhat is the extent of tiabilitg of such person.

¶75

In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶76

has held as under:

¶77

In our uieLu, the Medical Professionals namelg Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdeu exlended medical asglum to the respondent uithout there being ang reoson ol medical condition justifuing prolonged adrnlssion of the respondent as an indoor patient as a couer to defeot the Orders passed bg this Court and the Tial Court, os stated aboue and therebg aided and assisterJ the respondent in uiolaling the Order of this Court. By such conduct these MedicaL Pro./essionals haue ob structed administr atiott of^justice.

¶78

We thus hotd that the respondent guilty of hauing uiolated the Order dated 24.10.2013 passed bA this Court and for having obstntcted administration of justice. We also hotd Dr. Munish

¶79

u zo rz (:) eLr sr tsc)

¶80

¶81

HCJ & AAR,J LPA No.l /2O2O

¶82

PrabLnAar and Dr. K.S. Sachdeu guiltg for hauinl helped tlrc respondent tn his ottempts and therebg obstntcting adlinislration of jusfice.

¶83

I4. In Karnedena Veeraiah v. Narra Venkrr,terirvarlu6, this

¶84

Court at paras I I and 12 observed as under:

¶85

1 1) From the foregoing discussion it emerges that the Higlt Court, es tl Courl of Record, ltas undoubtedly inhet errt power os enshined tn Article 215 of the Constttution of India to pttr'jsh for rts contempt altd to haue all the powers of such a Court of record to pass orders in exercise of its inherent power to help the adninistration of justice, an(l Rule 27 of the Contempt of Court Rules J.amed bg this Court b! urtue of the poluers confened under Section 23 read with Article 215 of the Constitution onlg retterates uhat t: en.shined in Article 2'15 and is in confomitA uith the ratio laid dotur bg the Courts in the abouet mentioned cases.

¶86

I2) ....... Meretg because third parties haue intet uenezd, that bg itself contrct l)e circumstances that can come in the Luelt of ?xercise of inherent^jutisdiction of the High Court and pass^just ,rnd necessary orders uthile disposing of a contenlpt application. If in a giuen case theCourt cc,rnes to the concLusion that change in the circunL: tatrces is suc/l that no relief can be granted wh'ile exercising its inhert rrt jurisdiction, then the CoutT mag refrain from passing ang order and ;implg dispose of the cottetnpt application. But. on the other hand. if the Court. dfter eYq tJilr4g lhqt intqggt:j_gf^justice warrant to^qiae relief and if it ic.pqs_glDl€ !a g1!9 -'!7t9b relief, nothinq prevents the Court t t:9!!l _ pd,s sittg e orders^qiuinq such relief. (En phasts added)

¶87

This I)ivision Bench in C.A.No.51 of 2019 (Ch.Sudhakar Raju v. M. Rermadevi (Died per L.rs.) and others), drttec 13.1 1.2019, has held as und€'r:-

¶88

lhis Court has ample power to see that the oroers.oassed by the Coutl ore implemented in its true letter^qnd spiit ar d to do^justice to the parties. No person or authoitg can cause anA ob stru.tton or an impedinrenr be allowed uhich will result in tampering Luith the administrat ion of^justice.

¶89

In'"ieu,of the above law laid down by the lon'ble Supreme Court as rvell as Rule 27 of the Rules of High Oou:t of Andhra

¶90

6 l98s (2) APLr (HC) 193

¶91

¶92

HCJ & AAR,J LPA No.l12020

¶93

Pradesh, this Court has ample power to see that the orders passed by the Court are implemented in true letter and spirit and do complete justice to the parties. The learned Single Judge was legally justified in directing the olficial respondents to dispose of the application pending before them under B,R.S, And the appellants cannot be aggrieved by the said directror-r.

¶94

i7. Insofar as the other contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants with regard to the proposition of law that the scope of enactment or section cannot be enlarged by amending the Rule or through an Executive Order, cannot also be faulted and there is no quarrel with the same. But in the absence of any challenge to Rule 27 of th,e A.P.High Court Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Subordinate Courts and of the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Counsel for the appellants cannot raise the same. It is a well settled proposition of law that any enactment or rule made under the enactment is taken to be valid until a competent Court gives a finding to the contrary.

¶95