Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 559 (AP)

Beerakam Sekhar v. Satish Chandra

2021-08-23

AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI, D.RAMESH

body2021
JUDGMENT : Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. 1. This letters patent appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, questioning the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CC No. 789 of 2020, dated 07.05.2021. 2. The petitioners herein, by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed WP No. 20031 of 2018 before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by way of common order, dated 29.08.2019, allowed the batch of writ petitions, including the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein, and directed the respondents in the writ petition to regularize the services of the writ petitioners, subject to the writ petitioners' possessing other requisite qualifications. 3. Alleging willful disobedience of the said order, the petitioners herein initiated contempt proceedings against the respondents herein, by filing Contempt Case No. 789 of 2020 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Registrar of Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam, Tirupati vide Proceedings in ROC No. SPMW/Estt./NT/E/TS/2020, dated 05.11.2020, passed a speaking order, declining to accede to the request for regularizations of the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge vide order, dated 07.05.2021 closed the Contempt Case No. 789 of 2020 and the operative portion of the said order reads thus: "In view of the facts and circumstances state above, as pursuant to the directions of this Court in WP No. 20031 of 2018, dated 29.08.2019, the respondents have considered the cases of the petitioners and speaking orders were passed and communicated through letters dated 05.11.2020 to each of the petitioners, this Court is of the view that there is no willful violation of the orders of this Court by the respondents. The contempt case is, closed accordingly. No order as to costs." 4. In the above background, assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, present letters patent appeal has been filed. 5. Heard, Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for appellants, Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Education and Smt. Pulipati Radhika, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. It is contended by Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for the appellants that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law and inconsistent with the material placed on record. Heard, Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for appellants, Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Education and Smt. Pulipati Radhika, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. It is contended by Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for the appellants that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law and inconsistent with the material placed on record. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that having directed regularization of the services of the appellants herein in the order, dated 29.08.2019 in WP No. 20031 of 2018, in a positive manner, the learned Single Judge grossly erred in closing the contempt case. It is further urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge travelled beyond the scope of the contempt case and made observations about the entitlement of the appellants herein for the regularization. 7. On the contrary, Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contends that the very letters patent appeal filed by the appellants herein is not maintainable in the absence of any order of punishment passed by the learned Single Judge under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is also further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that in pursuance of the orders of this Court in WP No. 20031 of 2018, the 4th respondent herein passed a speaking order on 05.11.2020, turning down the claim of the appellants for regularization of the services, as such, the learned Single Judge is justified in closing the contempt case. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the contention of the Counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge made observations with regard to entitlement of the petitioners for regularization, is also incorrect. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in LPA No. 12594 of 2016, dated 30.11.2016 in the case of Kurapati Steevan v. The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, 2017 (2) ALD 13 (DB). 8. Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore People's Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda and others, 2006 (4) ALD 53 (SC) : (2006) 5 SCC 399 . 9. 8. Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore People's Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda and others, 2006 (4) ALD 53 (SC) : (2006) 5 SCC 399 . 9. The material available on record, in vivid and clear terms, discloses that the learned Single Judge of this Court in batch of writ petitions passed an order, dated 29.08.2019 directing the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioners, subject to the writ petitioners possessing requisite qualifications. Alleging violation of the said order, the appellants herein, who are the writ petitioners in WP No. 20031 of 2018, filed the contempt case, which came to be closed by the learned Single Judge, by way of the order under challenge. 10. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge manifestly discloses that at the time of hearing the matter, the Proceedings, dated 05.11.2020 issued by the 4th respondent, wherein the University declined to consider regularization of the appellants herein, were brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. After extracting the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by 4th respondent and taking into consideration of the speaking order, dated 05.11.2020, the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, opined that there was no willful violation of the orders passed in the writ petition. It is also very much clear from the reading of the said order that the learned Single Judge never commented on the suitability or validity of the speaking order, dated 05.11.2020. 11. Coming to the maintainability of the present letters patent appeal, in the judgment in the case of Midnapore People's Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda and others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court after reviewing the entire legal position laid down the following guidelines at Paragraph 11, which read as under: "11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus: I. An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. II. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus: I. An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any Contempt of Court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be m the exercise of "jurisdiction to punish for contempt" and, therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-Court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-Court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases)." 12. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-Court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-Court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases)." 12. It is significant to note that in the above referred judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court at Clause 10(n) made crystal clear neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act However, the Hon'ble Apex Court further clarified that in special circumstances, challenge may be made under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the case of Kurapati Steevan v. The Union of India, represented by its Secretary (supra), the Division Bench of Common High Court at Hyderabad after extensively considering a number of judgments of the Apex Court and other High Courts held as under: "On the other hand, it may be noticed that in State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy, while dealing with the issue as to whether an appeal would he under Section 19 of the Act of 1971 against an order refusing to initiate contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that an appeal is a creature of the statute and unless provided for there under, it could not be claimed as a matter of right or course. It was held that if the High Court passed an order dropping the proceedings for contempt or refusing to initiate proceedings for contempt, no appeal would be maintainable against such an order. Reference was made to the fact that contempt proceedings were not in the nature of a dispute between two parties but were proceedings primarily between the Court and the person alleged to have committed contempt. It was further observed that a person who informs the Court of the alleged contempt is not in the position of a prosecutor but is only assisting the Court in maintaining and upholding its dignity and majesty. The Supreme Court therefore held that it is for the Court to ultimate decide whether proceedings should be initiated for contempt or to discharge the contemnor on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court therefore held that it is for the Court to ultimate decide whether proceedings should be initiated for contempt or to discharge the contemnor on the facts and circumstances of the case. It was however pointed out that a person aggrieved by dropping of the contempt proceedings or failure to initiate the same is not without remedy as he could invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Though this case arose in the context of an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1971, the observation that the remedy provided to an aggrieved petitioner in a contempt case is only under Article 136 of the Constitution unequivocally puts it beyond the pale of doubt that no appeal would lie from such an order under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. This view was reiterated thereafter by the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda. 14. In view of the above legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present letters patent appeal is not maintainable. It is also pertinent to note that pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition a speaking order came to be passed on 05.11.2020. 15. In view of foregoing reasons, the letters patent appeal is dismissed. However, it is open for the appellants herein to take steps, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending shall stand closed.