The Telangana High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice P. Naveen Rao observed that contempt action not warranted unless clear case of unexplainable wilful disobedience is made out. (Ganta Sudheer Kumar versus Sri T Nagi Reddy, Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality, Bhongir, Yadadri Bhongir District & others)
The bench further observed that disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. However, such action should not be initiated unless a clear case of contumacious conduct, not explainable otherwise, arises.
Facts of the case
The Petitioners claimed ownership of the land in question and alleged that the unofficial Respondents had fraudulently obtained building permissions from the Municipality and started unauthorised construction over their land.
It was stated that the Municipality Commissioner, without issuing any notice to them and without verifying the documents, granted said building permissions.
The Court had passed interim order in the matter, restraining any further construction. The Court having considered the rival contentions, granted interim order on 23.8.2019 directing the respondents 5 and 6 therein not to make any construction and further directed Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality to ensure that no construction is made by respondents 5 and 6. Alleging violation of said orders, this Contempt case was filed.
The allegation was refuted by submitting that from the reading of interim order, he understood that he should not undertake further construction, if there is no building permission, whereas he was having valid building permission, and thus, he undertook further construction.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel submitted that the second respondent sold the property to the third respondent long before the interim orders were passed. Therefore, even if construction was carried on by the buyer who is not a party to the writ petition or to this contempt, the second respondent cannot be held guilty. Accordingly, by order dated 4.3.2022 contempt was closed against the second respondent.
Court's observations and Judgment
The bench at the very outset observed, "The Contempt of Courts Act is intended to correct a person deviating the norm and trying to breach the law/ assuming law on to himself. It intends to secure confidence of the people in the administration of justice by disciplining those erring in disobeying the orders of the Court. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines ‘civil contempt’ to mean wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court.
Constitutional Courts have laid down principles on when to exercise contempt jurisdiction. It is emphasised that there can be no laxity, as otherwise orders of court would be the subject of mockery [Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh (2002(4) SCC 21); Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai ((2008) 14 SCC 561)]. Disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests."
The bench further observed, "Disobedience of an order of court, whether prohibitive or mandatory, whether made ex parte or upon hearing both parties, or interim or perpetual, amounts to contempt if it is calculated or tends to interfere with the administration of justice, or brings it into disrespect or disregard [Jagarlmudi Chandramouli v. K.Appa Rao (1967(1) An.W.R.129)]. The power, to punish for contempt, is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice. [Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar ((1999) 7 SCC 569)].
The following conditions must be satisfied before a person can be held to have committed civil contempt: (i) there must be a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or an undertaking given to a court; (ii) there must be disobedience to such judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court (or breach of undertaking given to a court); and (iii) such disobedience of the judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or breach of undertaking must be wilful. [Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai (supra)]."
The bench disposing off the contempt case remarked, " It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible, making all allowances for errors of judgment. 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. Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and the standard of proof is the same as in other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/ rights, including benefit of doubt (Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi).
In the facts of this case, it can not be said that the actions of respondent-contemnors amounts to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court, warranting action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Contemnors are discharged. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed."
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments