Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1082 (AP)

Jagannath Singh v. A. J. Peter

2023-07-14

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

body2023
JUDGMENT: D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J. LPA No.1 of 2021 is filed questioning the order in C.C.No.1814 of 2016, by which the following direction was given:- “10. Accordingly, it is directed that the admitted 1339 logs of Red Sanders of similar grade commensurate to the weight as specified in Form-C filed by the petitioner, ought to be returned. Looking to the directions as issued by the court, it is apparent that, at first instance, respondents ought to have returned 1339 logs of Red Sanders in specie or in the alternative the value thereof was required to be paid. In such circumstances, it is directed that the order of the court must be complied with by the respondents now within a period of three (3) weeks from today. The respondents shall identify 1339 logs of Red Sanders available of similar grade within the aforesaid period and return back to the petitioner. In case, respondents want to make payment of the value, the same should be as per the Government guidelines of the grade of the wood seized, with the consensus commensurate to the weight as specified in Form-C. The said exercise must be completed within the aforesaid period. 11. It is further directed that the present incumbent officers, i.e., the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, and the Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Chittoor, Chittoor District, shall be joined by the petitioner by 30.11.2020 and thereupon, notices be issued to the said officers. The said officers shall submit compliance report; otherwise they shall remain personally present before this court.” 2. Questioning the same, Letters Patent Appeal No.1 of 2021 has been filed. 3. L.P.A.No.6 of 2021 has been filed aggrieved by the similar orders in C.C.No.153 of 2019, dated 27.11.2020. Since the subject matter in both the LPAs is one and the same, as per the orders dated 23.10.2021 in L.P.A.No.6 of 2021 both the matters were clubbed together and heard. 4. In view of the objection raised about the maintainability of the LPAs the same is taken up for hearing with consent of the Learned Counsels. 5. The essential point urged by Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the impugned order is beyond the scope of the main judgment itself and that the Bench committed a mistake in issuing the directions by considering the matters beyond the scope of its power particularly in contempt jurisdiction. 5. The essential point urged by Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the impugned order is beyond the scope of the main judgment itself and that the Bench committed a mistake in issuing the directions by considering the matters beyond the scope of its power particularly in contempt jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that the Court committed an error in calling for records in another case and also using the same for issuing directions. It is submitted that material, which is not part of the original case record, has been considered before issuing the directions. On merits detailed submissions were also made and written arguments were also submitted to show that the Court’s order is beyond the power available in the contempt jurisdiction. The judgment of the combined High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in L.P.A.No.14 of 2018 was also cited. The sum and substance of the submissions, therefore, is that as there is an alteration of the main order, the LPA is maintainable, that it should be heard and disposed of. 6. In reply to this, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel submits that a Letters Patent Appeal can only be filed against a final order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. He also points out that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed in Contempt, they have to prefer an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, on both these grounds viz., that there is no final order for filing LPA and if the petitioners are aggrieved the remedy is an appeal under Contempt of Courts Act it is submitted that the LPA is not maintainable and should be dismissed. COURT: 7. To understand this issue better, this Court is proposing to look into the impugned orders passed. 8. Initially contempt was filed based upon the failure of the respondents to comply with the order in W.P.No.397 of 1999. The following is the operative portion of the said order: “In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed issuing mandamus against the 2nd respondent for return of 1339 logs of Red Sanders to the petitioner either in specie or in value within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.” 9. The following is the operative portion of the said order: “In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed issuing mandamus against the 2nd respondent for return of 1339 logs of Red Sanders to the petitioner either in specie or in value within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.” 9. The State took the matter in appeal and in W.A.No.1642 of 2012 the following order was passed: “The contention of the writ petitioner cannot be accepted. However, after considering the facts as it would appear from the material placed before us, it appears to us, that such contention of the Government Pleader in the appeal cannot be accepted by us since it cannot be substantiated by any material or records and none of such material or record has been produced before us. On the contrary it appears to us that in the criminal proceedings the panchanama was placed and the same has been accepted, where from it would appear the number of logs, which were seized by the appellants/authorities and on the basis of that the petitioner is already acquitted from the said criminal charges. Further, more, the seized logs, which appear in the panchanama were never disputed and further more the logs which were also returned to the writ petitioner were not in dispute by the learned Government Pleader. In view of that, we do not find there is any substance in this writ appeal. We find no illegality or irregularity in the order so passed by the Hon’ble single Judge. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned single Judge is confirmed.” 10. An SLP was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court. The following order was passed in S.L.P.No.23868 of 2013: “Since the factual position has not been disputed before the High Court, we are unable to appreciate the persuasive submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the High court is not justified in going into the disputed questions of fact. Hence we do not find any merit in this special leave petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.” 11. Thereafter, since there is no compliance, contempt was filed. 12. A counter affidavit was filed in September, 2016 in reply to the Contempt Case. On 30.11.2017 the respondent in the Contempt Case tendered an amount of Rs.19,89,671/- vide cheque, dated 21.11.2017, to the petitioner. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.” 11. Thereafter, since there is no compliance, contempt was filed. 12. A counter affidavit was filed in September, 2016 in reply to the Contempt Case. On 30.11.2017 the respondent in the Contempt Case tendered an amount of Rs.19,89,671/- vide cheque, dated 21.11.2017, to the petitioner. This was not accepted stating that the same is grossly inadequate in value. Hence the following order was passed by the Court: “The value of each log is not before the Court and it is brought to the notice that in Form-C the value of the logs is recorded, which was not produced before this court. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader is directed to produce Form-C by the next date of hearing so as to ascertain whether the amount offered by the department is adequate or not towards costs of 1339 logs.” 13. Thereafter also it appears there is no quietus, and the issue of the value of the logs became a dispute. Ultimately, after hearing all the learned counsel and considering the earlier orders, the impugned order came to be passed. “10. Accordingly, it is directed that the admitted 1339 logs of Red Sanders of similar grade commensurate to the weight as specified in Form-C filed by the petitioner, ought to be returned. Looking to the directions as issued by the court, it is apparent that, at first instance, respondents ought to have returned 1339 logs of Red Sanders in specie or in the alternative the value thereof was required to be paid. In such circumstances, it is directed that the order of the court must be complied with by the respondents now within a period of three (3) weeks from today. The respondents shall identify 1339 logs of Red Sanders available of similar grade within the aforesaid period and return back to the petitioner. In case, respondents want to make payment of the value, the same should be as per the Government guidelines of the grade of the wood seized, with the consensus commensurate to the weight as specified in Form-C. The said exercise must be completed within the aforesaid period. 11. It is further directed that the present incumbent officers, i.e., the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, and the Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Chittoor, Chittoor District, shall be joined by the petitioner by 30.11.2020 and thereupon, notices be issued to the said officers. 11. It is further directed that the present incumbent officers, i.e., the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, and the Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Chittoor, Chittoor District, shall be joined by the petitioner by 30.11.2020 and thereupon, notices be issued to the said officers. The said officers shall submit compliance report; otherwise they shall remain personally present before this court.” 14. In the interim period the issue of Form-C became a contentious issue. It is the contention of the State that the Form-C is not available. The writ petitioner on the other hand submits that the Form-C was filed in the Criminal Case i.e., C.C.No.19 of 2000. Since the respondents could not locate or produce the Form-C, the writ petitioner made an application supported by an affidavit to file certain additional documents including the Form-C. 15. The consideration of this Form-C in the impugned order resulted in the LPA. 16. Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, vehemently argues that court exceeded its jurisdiction by relying on this Form-C, which is not part and parcel of the Court record, and directing that the value based thereon should be used for payment. 17. As mentioned earlier the contention of the learned counsel for the LPA appellant is that this consideration of new material is not permissible in contempt jurisdiction and that the Court should only confine itself to the issue of compliance of the Court order alone. According to the learned counsel the enquiry should be limited. The other documentary evidence etc., cannot be considered for issuing directions. 18. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel submits that in view of the contemptuous attitude of the respondents-State and to decide whether they have actually complied with the order of the Court it had become necessary for the Court to look into the document. He submits that by paying very small value the respondent wants to convince the Court that they have complied with the Court order. The document that is produced is only being utilized by the Court for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the logs and in turn for ascertaining if the order of the Court is complied with or not since an alternative was given to pay the “value”. The document that is produced is only being utilized by the Court for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the logs and in turn for ascertaining if the order of the Court is complied with or not since an alternative was given to pay the “value”. In addition, he also submits that the impugned order is not a final order because it merely directed the respondents to identify 1339 logs of a similar type for return. If they failed to do so they were directed to make the payment. No punishment under the Contempt jurisdiction was also imposed. Therefore, learned senior counsel submits that there is no finality as such that can be attached to this order. He contends that only if the order is a final order a Letters Patent Appeal would lie. 19. This Court after considering all the submissions notices that the order impugned directed the respondents to follow the directions of the Court, which are two fold: a) to return the 1339 logs of red sanders in specie or b) in the alternative to pay the value thereof. 20. In the opinion of this Court, this is an intermediary order for the purpose of final adjudication. There is no finality per se attached to this order. If there is no finality, in the opinion of this Court, a Letters Patent Appeal will not lie. The law is also well settled in this area. Para 22 of the judgment in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, (1981) 4 SCC 8 is reproduced hereunder: “22. It could thus be seen that both the judgments of S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. as well as A.N. Sen, J. in Shah Babulal Khimji v Jayaben D. Kania [ (1981) 4 SCC 8 ], have a common thread that, as to whether an order impugned would be a “judgment” within the scope of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, for such an order to be construed as a “judgment”, it must have the traits and trappings of finality. To come within the ambit of “judgment”, such an order must affect vital and valuable rights of the parties, which works serious injustice to the party concerned. However, for such an order to be construed as a “judgment”, it must have the traits and trappings of finality. To come within the ambit of “judgment”, such an order must affect vital and valuable rights of the parties, which works serious injustice to the party concerned. Each and every order passed by the Court during the course of the trial, though may cause some inconvenience to one of the parties or, to some extent, some prejudice to one of the parties, cannot be treated as a “judgment”. If such is permitted, the floodgate of appeals would be open against the order of the Single Judge.” 21. The position of law as laid down in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399 is also as follows: “11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarised 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 of the CC Act. 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 in 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. 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).” 22. Following this judgment, this Court holds that the impugned order does not completely adjudicate the issues raised by the parties in this Contempt Application. It has postponed the same for a further date. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against this order. 23. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Combined High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Shri Radhakrishna Mathur, IAS v I. Ravi Kumar, L.PA No.4 of 2014. This Court notices that in that case before the Division Bench of the Combined High Court, learned single Judge in the contempt Case directed the appellant to be present before him and also directed him to review his earlier order. This was faulted by the Division Bench by holding that the direction to the appellant to review his earlier order is an order on the merits of the matter and is not an order passed in exercise of the power to punish for contempt. Such a situation is not present in this case. 24. Therefore, for all the aforementioned reasons, these LPAs are dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. 25. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.