Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1451 (AP)

In Rep v. A. Giridhar

2022-12-12

BATTU DEVANAND

body2022
ORDER : 1. This Contempt Case is initiated against the respondents for their willful disobedience in complying the order of this Court dated 30.11.2020 and for obstructing the Constitutional functions of the Court. 2. In C.C. No. 1309 of 2020, at the stage of admission, on 30.11.2020 this Court ordered notices to the respondents therein and directed to post the contempt case on 14.12.2020. But, the C.C. No. 1309 of 2020 is posted on 18.12.2020. On verification of the case record, it was found that, the notices were dispatched by the Registry only on 17.12.2020 and contempt case was listed on 18.12.2020. Considering the same, this Court is of the prima-facie opinion that the Registry did not comply the orders of this Court in true spirit and they are obstructing the Constitutional functions of this Court and accordingly, directed the Registrar General to initiate contempt proceedings against the officers of the Registry who are responsible for not implementing the orders dated 30.11.2020 of this Court and submit “Action Taken Report” on the next date of hearing i.e. on 18.01.2021. 3. The Registrar General placed “Action Taken Report” before this Court on 18.01.2021 wherein, it is stated that, C.C. No. 77 of 2021 was registered against the respondents herein for not complying with the order dated 30.11.2020 of this Court. On 22.01.2021, after hearing the learned Advocate General and upon perusal of the record, notices were issued to the respondents. 4. All the respondents filed counter affidavits and additional counter affidavits. 5. Heard learned Advocate General and Sri T. Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2. Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 personally present before the Court and submitted their contentions. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 1, it is averred that, he has been discharging his duties as Registrar (Judicial) of this Court since 30.04.2020. Till then, he has been discharging his duties with utmost diligence and commitment in accordance with the established practices, High Court Rules, Standing Orders, Roster Directions and instructions/directions issued by the Hon’ble Judges from time to time. He always strived to uphold the majesty of the Court in the eye of the public and Advocates by discharging his duties and functions in accordance with law. He always strived to uphold the majesty of the Court in the eye of the public and Advocates by discharging his duties and functions in accordance with law. It is averred that, he strongly believed that any Orders of the Court should be complied with scrupulously. 7. It is further averred that, the Registrar General by letter dated 18.01.2021 has directed to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents in the present contempt case for causing delay in complying with the order dated 30.11.2020 passed by this Court, including Respondent No. 1. He contends that, he has no personal knowledge about the contempt case in C.C. No. 1309 of 2020 until the Court passed the order to initiate Contempt proceedings. It is also contended that, the report of the Registrar General placed before this Court identifying the officers responsible for noncompliance of the order dated 29.12.2020 of this Court is not furnished to him. Therefore, he averred that, he had no information, muchless, any knowledge about C.C. No. 1309 of 2020 and the order passed by the Court in the said case and there is no possibility of any disobedience on his part in the matter where he has no knowledge. 8. He further averred that, he believed that, this Court is concerned about the functioning of the Registry and has initiated steps for enhancing its functioning, for which he would be greatly obliged, although he is not responsible for the present contempt in any manner. In the said counter affidavit, he also recorded the relevant provisions of the High Court Standing Orders which are applicable to the judicial section and the procedure to be followed by them. He also contends that, the Standing Orders do not mandate the Registrar (Judicial) to either secure knowledge or perform any administrative functions in cases which are handled in the routine course by the concerned sections day-to-day. Finally, it is submitted that, he is deeply anguished for the inconvenience that has been caused to this Court and he tendered his unconditional apology. 9. Respondent No. 2 filed his counter affidavit, wherein, he contends that, he has been discharging his duties as Registrar (Protocol) by office order in ROC No. 306/2020-Estt. dated 20.07.2020, whereunder, he has been directed to attend the work in the judicial wing of the Registry and he shall function in coordination under the guidance of the Registrar (Judicial). 9. Respondent No. 2 filed his counter affidavit, wherein, he contends that, he has been discharging his duties as Registrar (Protocol) by office order in ROC No. 306/2020-Estt. dated 20.07.2020, whereunder, he has been directed to attend the work in the judicial wing of the Registry and he shall function in coordination under the guidance of the Registrar (Judicial). He has been attending to the works in the Judicial Wing. He has not been assigned any specific section or specific function in the Judicial Wing of the Registry and he does not have independent control or supervision over any section in the Judicial Wing. He tendered apology and sought pardon of the Court for the inconvenience caused to the Court in not properly complying with the order dated 30.11.2020 in C.C. No. 1309 of 2020 and prayed the Court to exonerate him and discharge him from the charges of contempt. 10. It is the contention of Respondent No. 3 that, in the Special Cell Section, for dispatching more than 2,000 order copies daily by post, the addresses of the respondents have to be written on the covers and acknowledgments. Presently, only one Assistant Section Officer and one Record Assistant are working. To dispatch the order copies daily, atleast ten staff members are required. He made repeated requests to the Registrar (Judicial) to depute atleast two or three office subordinates to avoid the delay in dispatch of the order copies to the respondents in time, but in vain. 11. Respondent No. 4 contends that, her duty is to prepare the registered postal covers received by the Special Cell Section. The preparation includes scribing addresses to the parties and pasting the covers and stamping. After preparing the covers with acknowledgment, she has to note down the case numbers in the book and after that, she has to dispatch the same to the Current Section. She submits that, she has been doing the work without any assistance. She further contends that, no delay was caused on her part in sending the covers to the Current Section. 12. Respondent No. 5 contends that, she dispatched the case bundles on the same day without delay. There is no delay on her part in implementing the orders of this Court. 13. She further contends that, no delay was caused on her part in sending the covers to the Current Section. 12. Respondent No. 5 contends that, she dispatched the case bundles on the same day without delay. There is no delay on her part in implementing the orders of this Court. 13. Respondent No. 6 contends that the contempt case bundle was received in the Special Cell on 30.11.2020 and allotted for drafting to him on 01.12.2020 and he has drafted on the same day. The same was approved by the Approval Officer on 03.12.2020. Hence, he contends that, there is no delay on his part in complying with the order of this Court. 14. Respondent No. 7 contends that, he has been attending to the work of Office Subordinate in the Special Cell Section and he is attending to the work whichever is entrusted to him by the Section Officer. He is not aware of the case bundle in C.C. No. 1309 of 2020 and he never obstructed the functions of the Court. 15. Respondent No. 8 contends that, he is working as Office Subordinate and he is not aware of the case bundle in C.C. No. 1309 of 2020. He is not aware of the dispatching the notices and he never obstructed the functioning of the Court. 16. Respondent No. 9 contends that, though there was a posting direction to list C.C. Nos. 1267, 1281 and 1309 of 2020 on 14.12.2020, but these cases were not listed on 14.12.2020 and listed on 18.12.2020, because of the reason that these contempt case files were received in O.S. Section on 15.12.2020 from Special Cell Section after dispatching of notices with a delay of one day and the Section In-charge of O.S. Section has fed the date of posting as 18.12.2020 and sent them to the concerned Posting Assistant on 17.12.2020 and listed on 18.12.2020. He was not informed by the concerned officer of the O.S. Section or the Posting Assistant in the Posting Section about the date of posting of the said cases. Due to that reason, those cases are not listed as per the directions of the Court. 17. Respondent No. 10 contends that, case file of C.C. No. 1309 of 2020 was received from O.S. Section on 17.12.2020 and the O.S. Section fed the matter to 18.12.2020 in the computer. Accordingly, the case was posted on 18.12.2020. Due to that reason, those cases are not listed as per the directions of the Court. 17. Respondent No. 10 contends that, case file of C.C. No. 1309 of 2020 was received from O.S. Section on 17.12.2020 and the O.S. Section fed the matter to 18.12.2020 in the computer. Accordingly, the case was posted on 18.12.2020. He contends that the notices in the contempt case will be sent by Special Cell and therefore, he is not aware about dispatching of the notices in the contempt case. 18. Respondent No. 11 contends that, the contempt case bundle was sent to the Special Cell for drafting and dispatching of notices on 30.11.2020 by the Court Officer and the same was received by the Special Cell on 01.12.2020 and notices were dispatched on 10.12.2020 and the case was sent to the O.S. Section on 15.12.2020. But, the same was sent to Posting Section on 17.12.2020 at evening hours which were listed on 18.12.2020. He contends that the Court ordered to list this contempt case for hearing on 14.12.2020 while notices were ordered in the said case. Much to his surprise and chagrin, the orders of the Hon’ble Court were not duly followed. He contends that, he has no role or part in the delay caused. He received case bundle only on 15.12.2020. He tendered his unconditional apology for the delay caused. 19. The respondents have filed affidavits asserting that they have not committed any act in disobedience of the order of the Court and the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. 20. This Court gave anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the averments made in the affidavits filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 11. 21. It is settled law that, any order or direction issued by the Court has to be complied within true spirit in the interest of justice. In the opinion of this Court, directing the Registry to issue notices to the respondents and giving direction to list the case on a particular date is an order passed by this Court. The concerned officers of the High Court Registry have to strictly implement the same. 22. In the High Court Standing Orders (Revised), 2004, the functions to be discharged by the various officers i.e. Registrar (Judicial) to Office Assistant are prescribed. The concerned officers of the High Court Registry have to strictly implement the same. 22. In the High Court Standing Orders (Revised), 2004, the functions to be discharged by the various officers i.e. Registrar (Judicial) to Office Assistant are prescribed. As per S.O.1-4, the Registrar (Judicial) has over all control and supervision over the sections under his control. He shall monitor the day-to-day Sittings of Hon’ble Judges, Pendencies of Decree-drafting and Translations, Despatch of Lower Court-Records, etc. and Stayed Matters, in particular, compliance of copy applications (C.D.) and prompt dispatch of urgent orders. The Registrar (Judicial) shall watch piling up of files in any of the Sections under his control and immediate steps are to be taken for their disposal. The Registrar (Judicial) shall also make frequent visits to the Sections under his control, since it is mostly his performance that has a direct impact on the image of the Institution. He must readily respond to the complaints of the Advocates and cause the defects rectified promptly. He must take every step to facilitate the smooth functioning of Courts. 23. On careful examination of the duties to be discharged by the Registrar (Judicial), it is very important to note that the performance of the Registrar (Judicial) has a direct impact on the image of the institution. In view of the functions to be discharged by the Registrar (Judicial), as mentioned at Standing Order No. 1-4, the Respondent No. 1 can’t contend that he is not responsible for the non-implementation of the Court directions by the subordinate officers working under his control and supervision in the Judicial Wing. 24. Though it is contended by the remaining respondents that, due to lack of sufficient staff or there is no any fault on their part in implementing the orders of the Court within the time stipulated and on consideration of overall facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents failed to implement the directions of this Court in true spirit. 25. As per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 “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. 26. 25. As per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 “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. 26. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1999 SC 3215 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. 27. In the District and Sessions Judge vs. The Executive Engineer, 1996 (2) ALD Cri. 844 the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted hereunder: “8. One of the well settled principles of law is that it is not only disobedience of the judicial order of the Court or interference with the judicial proceedings, which constitutes Contempt of Court, interference in exercise of administrative power by the Court also is a Contempt of Court.” 28. The prefatory remarks of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar, AIR 1995 SC 1795 as extracted hereunder would well project the importance of the issue under consideration in this suo motu contempt case: “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 of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. 2. 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. At Para Nos. 7 and 8, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as extracted hereunder: “7. 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. At Para Nos. 7 and 8, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as extracted hereunder: “7. 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 stream of justice clear and pure (which was highlighted more than two and half centuries ago by Lord Hardwicke, L.C. in St. James Evening Post case, 1742-2 Atk 469) so that the parties who approach the courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples” The purpose of contempt jurisdiction was summarised as below by Lord Morris in Attorney General vs. Times Newspapers, 1974 A.C. 273 at Page 302: “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 it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be 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 recognised courts of the land are so flouted and their authority wanes and is supplanted.” 8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, pre-variation and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts. 29. People would have faith in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts. 29. In Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India, (2012) 1 SCC 273 the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held as extracted hereunder: “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.” 30. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Ashok Khot, (2006) 5 SCC 1 the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as extracted hereunder: “It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the 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 sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.” 31. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Others vs. Hirak Ghosh and Others, 2002 Cri. L.J. 1814 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 in such a situation because otherwise the Court orders would become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible defence. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and Others vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and Others, AIR 2008 SC 3016 held that, punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible defence. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and Others vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and Others, AIR 2008 SC 3016 held that, punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and 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 and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. 33. In T. Girija Kumari vs. K. Venkateswara Rao, MANU/AP/0136/2012 the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted hereunder: “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 shakes the 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. 23. An order passed by a Court is sacrosanct and should be implemented. Implementation of an order cannot be 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.” 34. In the present case, this Court in C.C. No. 1309 of 2020 ordered notices to the respondents therein and directed to post the contempt case on 14.12.2020. Admittedly, the notices are issued by the Registry only on 17.12.2020 and contempt case is listed on 18.12.2020, as such, it has to be construed as “wilful disobedience” of the directions of this Court. Admittedly, the notices are issued by the Registry only on 17.12.2020 and contempt case is listed on 18.12.2020, as such, it has to be construed as “wilful disobedience” of the directions of this Court. Even it is “negligence and carelessness” it may amount to contempt, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others (supra). 35. It is well settled law that, the Rule of Law is the foundation of a democratic society and Judiciary is the guardian of Rule of Law. The officers/employees working in the Judiciary shall discharge their duties properly and effectively. They shall comply/obey the orders/directions issued by the Courts in true spirit. All are equal before law. The officers and employees who/we working in the Courts, may be subordinates to the Court on the administrative side. But, on Judicial side, they are equal to all others and they have to comply orders of the Court with more cautious, vigilant and alert. It is their primary duty to uphold the dignity of Courts and Majesty of Law. They have to ensure strict compliance of the orders/directions for proper functioning of the Court and to dispense with the Justice to the litigant public and for effective administration of justice. In our view, as and when this Court is taking stringent action against the persons, whoever they may be and however high they may be for non-implementation of Court orders or violation of Court orders, to uphold the Majesty of the Court and to render Justice to the people; it is the first and foremost duty of the officers and employees of the Courts to obey and comply the orders of the Court, or otherwise, there is no exception to them. 36. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as there is truth in the contentions of the respondents that, sufficient staff are not there in the Registry to discharge their functions properly and considering the unconditional apologies tendered by the respondents in their affidavit, this Court, taking a lenient view, intends to close this contempt case with a direction to the respondents to be more careful in implementing the directions of this Court in future in true spirit. 37. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. 38. 37. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. 38. It is made it clear that the observations of this Court, as stated supra, would not have any negative bearing against any respondent. 39. Before parting with this order, this Court intends to place on record its observations noticed while dealing this case, with regard to the difficulties of the employees working in the High Court Registry and to express its opinion to set-right the misdeeds which are causing inconvenience to the Court, to the Advocate fraternity and to the public at large. 40. This Court is very conscious that the Hon’ble the Chief Justice is the Head of the Judiciary with powers of administration of the High Court and administration of justice throughout the State. 41. It is an admitted fact that the High Court Registry is working with less than 50% of the sanctioned strength. Every employee is over-burdened for the lack of sufficient staff. Due to bifurcation of the common High Court and establishment of separate High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati with a short notice and no minimum facilities are available to the employees for transportation and lack of other basic amenities required to discharge their duties properly and peacefully and most of the employee’s families are staying at Hyderabad and they have to go every weekend to Hyderabad, it appears, there is serious disturbance in their performance in discharging their duties. This Court can’t lost its sight with regard to the filing of writ petition by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Employees Association seeking direction against the State Government Officers to provide basic amenities. 42. Besides this, this Court noticed monopoly of employees working in the Judicial Wing/Sections. Though there are different sections/different wings in the High Court Registry viz. Estt. Sec. (Officers), Recruitment Cell, J. Spl. (Admn. and Med.) Special Officer’s Section, D Sec. (Budget and Ex.P.) Computer Section, Protocol Section, J. Spl. (Telephones), etc. Most of the Sections are no way directly concerned with the day-to-day Court functioning and issues concerned to the Advocates, Advocate Clerks and Litigant Public. 43. Those sections working under the control and supervision of the Registrar (Judicial) are only having direct connection with the Court functioning, issues of the Advocates, Advocate Clerks and Litigant Public. Due to this reason only, in the Standing Orders, it is noted that, the Registrar (Judicial) performance has a direct impact on the institution. 43. Those sections working under the control and supervision of the Registrar (Judicial) are only having direct connection with the Court functioning, issues of the Advocates, Advocate Clerks and Litigant Public. Due to this reason only, in the Standing Orders, it is noted that, the Registrar (Judicial) performance has a direct impact on the institution. In My considered opinion, not only the performance of the Registrar (Judicial), but also, the performance of entire staff working in the Judicial Wing/Sections has a direct impact on the institution. The Court, Advocates, Advocate Clerks and Litigant Public are facing problems/inconvenience in day-to-day affairs, due to the monopoly of some of the employees working in the Judicial Section/Judicial Wing. 44. Under these circumstances: (i) If, appropriate steps are taken to fill the vacancies of sanctioned strength of employees in the Registry, within time frame. (ii) If, required amenities are provided to the employees of the Registry. (iii) If, 30% of the staff working in the Judicial Sections are transferred to other Sections (other Wings of the High Court Registry) every year and the staff working in the other Sections are posted in the Judicial Sections, whereby, all employees of the High Court will get experience to work in the judicial sections and monopoly of some of the employees working in the Judicial Sections will be vanished. (iv) It will be useful to facilitate the smooth functioning of the Court and to protect the public interest. 45. Registry is directed to place copy of this order before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for their Lordship’s perusal.