Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 323 (TS)

V. Chakradhar Reddy v. G. Raveen Kumar

2020-03-02

A.ABHISHEK REDDY, RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT A.Abhishek Reddy, J. - 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 2017 and W.P.No.18999 of 2016. 2. The appellants herein are arrayed as respondent Nos.3 to 16 in C.C.No.472 of 2017, and as respondent Nos.4 to 17 in W.P.No.18999 of 2016. 3. The learned Single Judge by common order, dated 03.01.2020, 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 viz., 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.1899 of 2016 for regularization under B.R.S. Scheme, which was 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. 4. 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 10.08.2016, in W.P.M.P.No.23305 of 2016 in W.P.No.18999 of 2016, had passed the following Order: "......... Since the application of respondents 4 to 11 under BRS is pending consideration before the 1st 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 restrained from putting the subject construction to any use until further orders." 5. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein have filed Contempt Case alleging that the official respondents, in spite of the orders, dated 10.08.2016, passed in W.P.M.P.No.23305 of 2016, have not taken any action and the appellants are continuing to do business in the said premises. On 03.01.2020, the Contempt Case and the Writ Petition were posted and the learned Single Judge has passed following Common Order: "Heard the matter in part. On 03.01.2020, the Contempt Case and the Writ Petition were posted and the learned Single Judge has passed following Common Order: "Heard the matter in part. Within one (01) week from today, the 1st respondent in the Contempt Case viz., the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (G.H.M.C.), shall take a decision on the application of respondent Nos.4 to 17 for regularization under B.R.S.Scheme notified vide G.O.Ms.No.152, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M.1) Department, dated 02.11.2015, and communicate the said decision to this Court. The Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (G.H.M.C.). Post the Contempt Case along with Writ Petition on 24.01.2020." 6. It is argued by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the jurisdiction of the Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is very narrow, when the complaint of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein before the Court was that the official respondents are not taking any action and the appellants herein are continuing with the business activity in the premises in question. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Contempt Court. Hence, the present L.P.A. is filed to set aside the same. The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decisions reported in SUDHIR VASUDEVA v. M.GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN, 2014 3 SCC 373 MAHACHANDRA PRASAD SINGH (DR.) v. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, 2004 8 SCC 747 NEWSPAPERS LTD. v. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL U.P., 1957 AIR(SC) 532 and GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF v. SUBHASH CHANDRA YADAV, 1988 2 SCC 351 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. 7. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 7. 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 within 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 Courts and of the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this Hon'ble High Court is having ample jurisdiction to pass any order in the Contempt Case. Hence, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the L.P.A. filed by the appellants herein. 8. Heard Mr.Anand Kumar Kapoor, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, and Mr. T.Rajinikanth Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. As seen from the record, the impugned order in the present appeal is only a direction given to the official respondents to dispose of the application made for regularisation of the illegal construction made by the appellants herein pending under the B.R.S., and to intimate the said decision to the Court. It is incomprehensible as to how the appellants herein are aggrieved by the said direction. Though the learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that such direction could not had been issued by the learned Single Judge as it is beyond the powers vested in the Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the learned Counsel has not answered the query put by the Court and has argued only on the technical maintainability of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in a Contempt Case. 10. Though there is no quarrel or dispute with regard to the propositions of law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions relied by the learned Counsel for the appellants. 10. Though there is no quarrel or dispute with regard to the propositions of law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions relied by the learned Counsel for the appellants. But, these decisions do not deal with the Rule specific to the State of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana) i.e. Rule 27 of the 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, which reads as follows: The Court may pass such orders as the Justice of the case requires. 11. 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 facts 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. 12. In Sita Ram V. Balbir @ Bali, 2017 3 ALT 31 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case where respondents-contemnor had admitted into the Hospital only with a view 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: 21. ..... The theory that the hospital was trapped by the designs of the respondent is a mere eye-wash and we reject the same. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that the hospital extended protection and asylum to the respondent to defeat the Order passed by this Court as well as those passed by the Trial Court and thereby obstructed administration of justice. 24. .... Questions that arise are: (1) whether a person, who is not bound by a direction issued by the Court could be held guilty for committing contempt of court for his conduct in either directly aiding and abetting violation on part of the person who is bound by such direction; and (2) what is the extent of liability of such person. 13. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 25. In our view, the Medical Professionals namely Dr.Munish Prabhakar and Dr. 13. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 25. In our view, the Medical Professionals namely Dr.Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev extended medical asylum to the respondent without there being any reason or medical condition justifying prolonged admission of the respondent as an indoor patient as a cover to defeat the Orders passed by this Court and the Trial Court, as stated above and thereby aided and assisted the respondent in violating the Order of this Court. By such conduct these Medical Professionals have obstructed administration of justice. 26. We thus hold that the respondent guilty of having violated the Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this Court and for having obstructed administration of justice. We also hold Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev guilty for having helped the respondent in his attempts and thereby obstructing administration of justice. 14. In Kanedena Veeraiah v. Narra Venkateswarlu, 1985 2 APLJ 193 (HC) this Court at paras 12 and 13 observed as under: 12) From the foregoing discussion it emerges that the High Court, as a Court of Record, has undoubtedly inherent power as enshrined in Article 215 of the Constitution of India to punish for its contempt and to have all the powers of such a Court of record to pass orders in exercise of its inherent power to help the administration of justice, and Rule 27 of the Contempt of Court Rules framed by this Court by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 23 read with Article 215 of the Constitution only reiterates what is enshrined in Article 215 and is in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Courts in the above mentioned cases. 13) ...... Merely because third parties have intervened, that by itself cannot be circumstances that can come in the way of exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and pass just and necessary orders while disposing of a contempt application. If in a given case the Court comes to the conclusion that change in the circumstances is such that no relief can be granted while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, then the Court may refrain from passing any order and simply dispose of the contempt application. If in a given case the Court comes to the conclusion that change in the circumstances is such that no relief can be granted while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, then the Court may refrain from passing any order and simply dispose of the contempt application. But, on the other hand, if the Court, after examination of the facts and circumstances, finds that interests of justice warrant to give relief and if it is possible to give such relief, nothing prevents the Court from passing appropriating orders given such relief. (Emphasis added) 15. This Division Bench in C.A.No.51 of 2019 (Ch.Sudhakar Raju v. M. Ramadevi (Died per L.rs.) and others), dated 13.11.2019, has held as under:- This Court has ample power to see that the orders passed by the Court are implemented in its true letter and spirit and to do justice to the parties. No person or authority can cause any obstruction or an impediment be allowed which will result in tampering with the administration of justice. 16. In view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Rule 27 of the Rules of High Court of Andhra 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 official respondents to dispose of the application pending before them under B.R.S. And the appellants cannot be aggrieved by the said direction. 17. 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 the 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. 18. 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. 18. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the appeal fails, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.