Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1189 (AP)

Lakshmi Prasanna, W/o. Omprakash v. S Narasimhulu

2025-11-19

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

body2025
ORDER : GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. Heard Sri A. Sreedhar, Ld. Counsel for the Contempt Petitioner, Sri S. Hruthik, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Sudhir, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Sri O.Udaya Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the Order of this Court dated 26.03.2025 in W.P.No.7770 of 2025. 3. Para-3 of the Order of this Court dated 26.03.2025 in W.P.No.7770 of 2025 would indicate that this Court had directed the Respondent No.4 (in the Writ Petition) to initiate appropriate legal action if the Respondent No.5 carries-on construction unauthorizedly. 4. On perusal of the Affidavit filed by the Petitioner in support of this Contempt Case, nowhere it is disclosed as to when the Petitioner had in fact conveyed the Order of this Court to the Respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition (Respondent No.2 in the present Contempt Case). The Petitioner has not filed any Photographs to indicate the position of the construction as on the date when this Court had passed order on 26.03.2025 and the further progress in construction. 5. In the matters of construction, the crucial evidence by which the Complainant can establish that the Court Order has been violated by the Respondents is by showing the Photographs as on the date of the filing of the Writ Petition and subsequent Photographs after passing of Order with date and time. However, the Petitioner has not filed any such Photographs. The Petitioner has made an attempt to place reliance on the Photographs filed by the Respondent No.1, who is presently serving as a Panchayat Secretary. This Court had perused the said Photographs. The Photographs does not contain date, month and time, as such, and therefore, it would not help to the Petitioner to establish the fact that the Respondent No.2 had violated the Order of this Court. 6. Admittedly, the Contempt Proceedings by their very nature, are quasi criminal in nature and therefore, the standard of proof that is required to establish the Contempt in the cases of construction are higher than mere preponderance of probabilities. Mere averments made against the Panchayat Secretary (Respondent No.1) that the Respondent No.2 had violated the Order of the Court, without being supported by proper documentary evidence, is insufficient to hold that the Respondent No.2 has committed Contempt of Court. 7. Mere averments made against the Panchayat Secretary (Respondent No.1) that the Respondent No.2 had violated the Order of the Court, without being supported by proper documentary evidence, is insufficient to hold that the Respondent No.2 has committed Contempt of Court. 7. View of this Court is fortified by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj , (2014) 16 SCC 204 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: 11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta [V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, (1992) 4 SCC 697 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 202 : (1993) 23 ATC 400] , Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati [Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1196] , Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh [Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21 ] , Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya [Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360 ] , Sahdeo v. State of U.P. [Sahdeo v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 451] and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus [National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 600 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 481 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 172] .) 8. In this view of the matter, the Petitioner has miserably failed to establish that the Respondent No.2 had violated the Order of this Court. Therefore, this Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.