Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 613 (AP)

S. S. Rawat v. Puvvada Venkata Siva Prasad

2022-07-05

G.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2022
JUDGMENT U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The challenge in the instant appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is to the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by a learned single Judge in C.C. No. 575/2022. 2. The factual matrix of the case which led to file the instant LPA is that the respondent herein filed W.P. No. 1263/2022 seeking mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 therein in not paying the final bill amount to him as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction. The said writ petition was allowed on 21.01.2022 with a direction that the respondents in the writ petition shall pay the principal amount of the bill raised by the petitioner within four weeks and the writ petitioner was at liberty to renew/raise/agitate his right with regard to interest aspect after disposal of the writ appeals. (a) While so, since the above order was not complied, the writ petitioner filed C.C. No. 575/2022 against the willful disobedience of the contemnor in implementing the order. It appears, two months after issuing the notice in contempt case, the payment was made to the writ petitioner on 10.05.2022. In that context, during the hearing of the contempt case, learned single Judge enquired the officer present in the court regarding the delay aspect and the officer submitted that after receipt of the bills, as per the priority of the Government, they were clearing the bills pending in the Finance Department. The said answer was not accepted by the learned single Judge on the observation that as per the CFMS system the bill which was received in the Finance Department has to be cleared at first than the second bill, but the said system was not being followed by the Finance Department and thereby the petitioner suffered a lot. On this observation, learned single Judge intended to look into the bills received from various Departments to the Finance Department atleast for one financial year and directed the respondent/contemnor to file an affidavit along with the particulars/statement of bills received from various Departments to the Finance Department, date-wise and the particulars of the bills cleared by the CFMS date-wise for the previous financial year by 28.06.2022. The above interim order is challenged in the form of L.P.A. 3. Heard learned counsel for appellant Sri V. Ashok Ram, and learned counsel for respondent Sri Prabhunadh Vasireddy. 4. The above interim order is challenged in the form of L.P.A. 3. Heard learned counsel for appellant Sri V. Ashok Ram, and learned counsel for respondent Sri Prabhunadh Vasireddy. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 14.06.2022 on the main ground that the said order has no nexus with the relief claimed in the main writ petition as well as consequential contempt case. Through the impugned order, learned single Judge embarking on holding a roving enquiry into the working of Finance Department which is impermissible in a contempt jurisdiction. He would further argue that the order in the writ petition was complied with some delay and if the Court is not satisfied with the delay, order can be passed in the contempt case but a direction to produce the information which is not concerned with contempt case cannot be issued. He thus prayed to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Sri Vasireddy Prabhunadh would argue that the L.P.A. is not maintainable at the threshold since no order has been passed in the main contempt case and only a direction was issued to produce certain information in the form of an affidavit of the respondent to facilitate the enquiry in the contempt case. Therefore, such a direction is not amenable to LPA. He would further submit that the bill of the petitioner was thrice returned and it was only after filing of the contempt case, payment was made. 6. The point for consideration is whether LPA is maintainable under law? 7. Point: We gave our anxious consideration to the order impugned. Admittedly, no final order has been passed in the C.C. and it is only during the enquiry in the contempt case, a direction has been issued by the learned single Judge to the respondent to produce certain information in the form of affidavit. No doubt, the petitioner claims that such a direction is beyond the scope of contempt proceedings. However, in our considered view, before considering that aspect it should be decided whether the LPA is maintainable against the impugned order. The law is no more res Integra on this aspect. 8. In Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. V. Chunilal Nanda AIR 2006 SC 2190 , the Apex Court has expounded the principle as to the maintainability and non-maintainability of intra-court appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent against certain interim orders. The law is no more res Integra on this aspect. 8. In Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. V. Chunilal Nanda AIR 2006 SC 2190 , the Apex Court has expounded the principle as to the maintainability and non-maintainability of intra-court appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent against certain interim orders. It was held thus: '16. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories: (i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case. (ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case. (iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject matter of the main case. (iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. (v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. The term 'judgment' occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, 'judgments' for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not 'judgments' for purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent, (emphasis supplied)' 9. As can be seen, the impugned order falls within category (iv) and (v) as the said order is passed to facilitate the progress in the contempt case, but it will not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. Therefore, the impugned order in our view will not give a scope for filing Letters Patent Appeal. It is brought to our notice that in W.A. No. 555/2022, in respect of similar order, a Division Bench of this High Court granted stay on 28.06.2022. Therefore, the impugned order in our view will not give a scope for filing Letters Patent Appeal. It is brought to our notice that in W.A. No. 555/2022, in respect of similar order, a Division Bench of this High Court granted stay on 28.06.2022. We are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for appellant in view of the above judgment of the Apex Court. 10. So far as the argument of the appellant that the impugned order is beyond the scope of contempt case is concerned, we give liberty to the appellant to produce the information as directed in the impugned order in the form of an affidavit along with particulars/statement of bills in a sealed cover before the learned single Judge and to raise the said argument, in which case, we are sure, learned single Judge will consider the said argument and pass an order first on the relevancy of the aforesaid material to the main Contempt Case and then proceed to decide the Contempt Case on merits. With the above observations, this LPA is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.