[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
D Ankineedu vs Ch Dwaraka Tirumala Rao on 20 June, 2025
::1::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
APHC010639032023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU
NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6771/2023
Between:
1. D ANKINEEDU, S/O. PARISUDHA RAO, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC
RTC CONSTABLE, E 272149, PRESENTLY WORKING AT
TENALI BUS DEPOT, APSRTC, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. CH DWARAKA TIRUMALA RAO, The Vice-Chairman and
Managing Director, The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport
Corporation, R.T.C. House, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
...CONTEMNOR
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971
praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the
High Court may be pleased to pleased to take into cognizance, under
the provisions of the Contempt Of Court Act against the respondent
herein for intentionally, willfully and deliberately violating the order dated
03.01.2023 passed in WP.No. 47627 of 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Sri
::2::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda and prosecute the respondent
herein and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P VIVEK
Counsel for the Contemnor:
1. M SOLOMON RAJU
The Court made the following:
::3::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
This Court made the following
ORDER:
1. This Contempt Case has been filed under Sections 10 and 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willfully disobeying the orders of
this Court in W.P.No.47627 of 2018, dated 03.01.2023.
2. The petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No.47627 of 2018 against
the respondents before this Court and the same was allowed by this
Court on 03.01.2023, wherein the operative portion of the order reads as
follows:
“13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order passed
by the 3rd respondent dated 26.03.2018 and the consequential order
dated 09.04.2018 passed by the 1st respondent are set aside. The
matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent with a direction to
examine the records and determine the appropriate punishment to
be imposed on the petitioner strictly following the Regulations, 1967,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Needless to state that since the petitioner has been
continuing according to the order of the Reviewing Authority to
appoint him afresh as a Constable, thus status-quo as on today
shall continue till final orders are passed by the 3rd respondent
regarding the proposed action/punishment on the petitioner.”
::4::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
3. Learned Senior Counsel representing the Advocate-on-record
submits that immediately after receipt of order of this Court dated
03.01.2023 on 06.02.2023, the petitioner had submitted a representation
to the respondent herein along with copy of the order and requesting the
respondent to implement the order of this Hon’ble Court. As per the
directions of this Hon’ble Court the respondent authority shall implement
the order on or before 06.05.2023. Even though after receipt of
representation the respondent herein neither considered the
representation and complied the same nor passed any other
proceedings. Having no other option the petitioner was forced to issue a
legal notice to the respondent authority on 31.07.2023 and the same was
received by the respondent authority on 02.08.2023. Thereafter, on
22.09.2023 the petitioner received an order dated 20.05.2023 through a
registered post duly passed by the respondent herein. On perusal of the
order passed by the respondent herein dated 20.05.2023, which reveals
that once again this respondent repeated the earlier order which was set-
aside and reiterated the same punishment of reinstating into the service
as a fresh candidate. Therefore, the respondent authority reiterating the
earlier order which was already set aside by this Hon’ble Court on the
ground of disproportionate as well as unknown to the law governing for
::5::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023punishment and also not permitting to pass such an order. Even though
the respondent suffered an order dated 03.01.2023 again reiterating the
same impugned order and appointing the petitioner as a fresh candidate
into service is amounts to an intentional, willful and deliberate action
violating the order of this Hon’ble Court. He further submits that the act
of the respondent in re-issuing similar order which was already been set
aside by this Hon’ble Court amounts to a willful and deliberate act of
contempt of court. Accordingly, the respondent is liable to be punished
under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent filed counter-
affidavit contending that this Hon’ble Court passed the order on
03.01.2023 in W.P.No.47627/2018. Since the earlier order was set
aside, the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.47627/2018 issued proceedings/
orders on 20.05.2023. Aggrieved by the said proceedings afresh, the
present contempt case but also challenged by way of writ petition, which
is pending consideration. In compliance of the orders of this Court,
admittedly, the case of the petitioner was re-examined. Basing on the
facts involved and duly keeping the relevant Provisions of APSRTC
Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1967 revisited the earlier order and
passed an order afresh and further relief was granted to the petitioner by
::6::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023giving continuity of service for the purpose of his terminal benefits,
through the revised proceedings dated 18.03.2024. The said
proceedings were served on the petitioner and placed before this Hon’ble
Court on 28.03.2024. Further, learned counsel for respondent submits
that the matter was adjourned since the petitioner sought time to file
additional material papers. Therefore, it may not be appropriate that the
correctness of the order cannot be dealt with in a contempt case, as held
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of
Jharkhand and others 1 . The petitioner herein challenged the said
orders in a fresh W.P.No.21139 of 2024 and the same is pending for
adjudication. Therefore, in view of the pending fresh writ petition, the
present contempt case may be closed as complied with. He further
submits that the respondent herein has great respect towards Hon’ble
Courts and the orders of this Hon’ble Court. If this Hon’ble Court for any
reason, holds that there is any disobedience on the part of the
respondent, respondent hereby tendering his unconditional apology. He
further submits that this Hon’ble Court allowed the writ petition and
remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent therein with a direction to
examine the records and determine appropriate punishment to be
imposed on the petitioner strictly by following Regulations, 1967 within a
1
2004 (7) SCC 261
::7::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and
further observed that the service of the petitioner should be continued.
Accordingly, since he was reinstated pursuant to the orders of this
respondent although in a revision as constable afresh. In compliance of
the orders of this Court as mentioned above, the petitioner has been
continuing in service due to the orders passed by this respondent and as
per the direction of this Court since the matter was remanded for fresh
consideration, this respondent considered the order of this Court and
issued proceedings dated 20.05.2023, wherein it is observed as under:
“12.As seen from the records and the observations recorded above,
it is irrefutable that he was found guilty of the offence and there are
absolutely no procedural lapses. In the interest of justice those
found guilty should not go unpunished. He already got the required
relief in the form of his reinstatement afresh purely on humanitarian
grounds. Any further relief as per his prayer in the WP amounts to
(i) that he is absolved of the charges which is not a fact and (ii)
imposing no punishment at all in spite of the fact that he was found
guilty of the offence through a well conducted disciplinary
proceedings. Any further dilution of the proceedings of the former
VC & MD under reference 5th cited will send wrong signals to the
other hard working, law abiding, sincere and honest employees who
may see this as a dis-incentive for their commitment and loyalty.
13. For all the aforementioned reasons, I am not inclined to interfere
with the proceedings of the former VC &MD in reinstating him
afresh.”
5. Even after fresh consideration by the 3rd respondent in Writ
Petition pursuant to the orders of this Hon’ble Court the respondent
came to conclusion that the orders of former VC&MD in reinstating the
::8::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023petitioner afresh need not be interfered. Then said impugned order
dated 20.05.2023 is assailed in the present Contempt Case alleging that
even though the matter is remanded for fresh consideration, but again
reiterating the same order is nothing but deliberately and intentionally
committing the offence of contempt by the 3rd respondent in Writ Petition.
While so, pending contempt proceedings and after considering the other
aspects the 3rd respondent in Writ Petition again revisited the order dated
20.05.2023 and issued fresh proceedings dated 18.03.2024 wherein it is
held as under:
“17. Hence, I order that (i) Sri A. Ankineedu, E.272149, shall be
reinstated into service with effect from 12.04.2018 (the date of his
reporting on reinstatement) at the minimum of the time scale of the
post of RTC Constable (ii) the service he had rendered earlier prior
to the date of removal on 30.03.2017 in this case shall be
considered as qualifying service only for the purposes of his
terminal benefits and (iii) the period from the date of removal
(30.03.2017) to the date of reporting on reinstatement (12.04.2018)
shall be treated as not on duty for the purposes of wages, service,
seniority, leave, increment, gratuity and other benefits.
18. These proceedings are issued in supersession of the earlier
proceedings of even no. dated 20.05.2023 and in full compliance
with the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in WP No.47627/2018,
dated 13.01.2023.”
6. In view of the orders passed afresh on 18.03.2024, the orders of
this Court complied with all respects and contempt case is liable to be
closed.
::9::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter
filed by the respondent herein, wherein it is stated as under:
“5. That in reply to para 4, it is submitted that after filing the present
contempt case, the respondent herein passed another proceedings
dated 18.03.2024 in supersession of his earlier proceedings dated
20.05.2023. In the said proceedings dated 18.03.2024, the respondent
herein again imposed same punishment of reinstatement as fresh
candidate and further ordered that period from joining into service till
date of reinstatement shall be counted only for the purpose of
retirement benefits and it shall not carry any other service benefits
including seniority, wages, leaves, increments, gratuity etc. This I
submit is nothing but the same punishment reiterated in other words.
The same is illegal and contrary to the service regulations. When
punishment as reinstatement as fresh candidate which was imposed
against me was already set-aside by this Hon’ble Court, again
issuance of the proceedings dated 18.03.2024 clearly amounts to
contempt of order dated 03.01.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court.”
8. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that even though the
3rd respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 18.03.2024 in
supersession of proceedings dated 20.05.2023 but the respondent herein
ignored the observation of this Court that when a particular punishment
i.e. “Reinstatement of petitioner afresh” was not prescribed under
statutory regulations, such punishment could not be imposed on
delinquent employee, whereas, awarding of punishment of appointment
as a fresh candidate was already held as unknown to law and set aside.
Again reiterating the same by issuing proceedings dated 18.03.2024
ordering reinstatement of the petitioner as afresh at the minimum time
scale of post as Constable is nothing but deviating from the sum and
::10::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023substance as well as purport of the orders this Hon’ble Court. The
specific observation of this Hon’ble Court, in setting aside the punishment
imposed by the respondent, was based on the ground that the
punishment rules governing at the respondent’s corporation did not
prescribe such a punishment, namely, reinstatement of the petitioner as a
fresh candidate. Therefore, again continuing or reinstating the petitioner
at minimum time-scale in the post of RTC Constable is nothing but
reinstating him afresh only. Therefore, the respondent committed guilty
willfully, intentionally and deliberately violated the orders of this Hon’ble
Court by which he committed breach or violation of order, hence he is
liable for punishment Under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Court
Act.
9. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for
Respondent and perused the material placed on record including the
counter-affidavit and reply affidavit of the Petitioner.
10. Before adverting to the facts of the case, I find it apposite to
narrate the legal position for better appreciation of the case and
application of law.
::11::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
11. The Contempt of Court is defined under Section 2(a) as follows:
“contempt of court means, civil contempt or criminal contempt”, Whereas
clause (b) of Section 2 defines Civil Contempt as “willful disobedience to
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or
willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.”
12. “Contempt” is disorderly conduct of contemnor causing serious
damage to the institution of justice administration. Such conduct, with
reference to its adverse effects and consequences, can be discernibly
classified into two categories one which has a transient effect on the
system and/or the person concerned and is likely to wither by the
passage of time while the other causes permanent damage to the
institution and administration of Justice (Vide: Kalyaneshwari vs. Union
of India and others2).
13. When once an order is passed, it is the duty of the authorities to
implement the same without giving any interpretation and if the order is
contrary to law, they are at liberty to file appropriate appeal before the
appellate authority. But, without preferring an appeal, the
respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and give different
meaning to the order passed by the Court, which is sought to be
2
(2011) 6 SCALE 220
::12::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023implemented, as directed by this Court. In fact, the respondent neither
preferred writ appeal nor filed any vacate petition and also did not file any
petition for modification either for exemption of time or for reduction of
any liability amount to be paid. Such act of the respondent/contemnor is
illegal in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah3, wherein,
it is held as follows:
31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction
is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and
implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by
a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will
be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such
order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to
him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate
proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made
ineffective by not complying with the directions on a
specious plea that no such directions could have been
issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such
argument would result in chaos and confusion and would
seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The
argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be
rejected.
3
(2007) 7 SCC 689
::13::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
32. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It
is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the
Court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue
appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions.
There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the
circumstances, the Court may issue necessary directions in
the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of
justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case, w3here
ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In
spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they
had not been given to him. His representations have been
illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches
a Court of Law. The Court is convinced that gross injustice
has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and
with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The Court, in
the circumstances, directs the Authority to extend all benefits
which he would have obtained had he not been illegally
deprived of them. Is it open to the Authorities in such case to
urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally
deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding
of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue
advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice
rather than doing justice to the person wronged. We are
conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory
provision, normal rule is ‘no work no pay’. In appropriate
cases, however, a Court of Law may, nay must, take into
account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate
::14::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023order in consonance with law. The Court, in a given case,
may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally
and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The Court may in the
circumstances, direct the Authority to grant him all benefits
considering ‘as if he had worked’. It, therefore, cannot be
contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction
of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a
Court of Law and if such directions are issued by a Court,
the Authority can ignore them even if they had been finally
confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been
done in the present case). The bald contention of the
appellant-Board, therefore, has no substance and must be
rejected.
14. The same view is expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others 4, where the
Court held that, while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court
is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which
has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be
permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision
which had not been assailed and to take the view different than what was
taken in the earlier decision If any party concerned is aggrieved by the
order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation
4
(2004) 7 SCC 261
::15::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the
Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court.
Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt
proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an
order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While
dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse
beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged It cannot traverse
beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or
give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising
review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of
contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and
indefensible.
15. In The State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari 5, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court while dealing with violation of order passed under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Court, held that, a party proceeded
against Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C for disobedience of an order of
injunction cannot be held to have willfully disobeyed the order provided
two conditions are satisfied viz., (1) that the order was ambiguous and
was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation (2) that the party
5
AIR 1961 SCC 221
::16::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023being proceeded against in fact did not intend to disobey the order, but
conducted himself in accordance with his interpretation of the order. The
question whether a party has understood an order in a particular manner
and has conducted himself in accordance with such a construction is
primarily one of-fact, and where the materials before the Court do not
support such a state of affairs, the Court cannot attribute an innocent
intention based on presumptions, for the only reason, that ingenuity of
Counsel can discover equivocation in the order which is the subject of
enforcement. Though undoubtedly proceedings under Order XXXIX
Rule 2(3) of C.P.C have a punitive aspect – as is evident from the
contemnor being liable to be ordered to be detained in civil prison, they
are in substance designed to effect the enforcement of or to execute the
order. This is clearly brought out by their identity with the procedure
prescribed by Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C for execution of a decree for
permanent injunction. No doubt the State Government not being a
natural person could not be ordered to be detained in civil prison, On the
analogy of Corporations; for which special provision is made in Order
XXXIX Rule V C.P.C, but beyond that, both when a decree for a
permanent injunction is executed and when an order of temporary
injunction is enforced the liability of the State Government to be
proceeded against appears to us clear.
::17::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
16. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really
concerned with the question as to whether the earlier decision which has
received its finality had been complied with or not. This Court is primarily
concerned with the question of conduct of the party who is alleged to
have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment
or order. If there is any ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for
the concerned party to approach the Higher Court, if according to him/her
the same is not legally tenable and such a question has necessarily to be
agitated before the Higher Court. Assuming that a question arose about
impossibility of complying with the order, if that was the case, atleast
Respondent No.2 could have done was to assail correctness of the
order/judgment before the Higher Court. But, Respondent No.2 took a
stand that the amended order dated 30.04.2022 is beyond the scope of
the contempt case and failed to comply with the order of this Court. If any
party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or
against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it
should always either approach the Court that passed the order or invoke
jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order
cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has
to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable
for contempt.
::18::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
17. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to
the present facts of the case, this Court can safely conclude that, the
respondent, in utter disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated
03.01.2023, consciously violated the order passed by this Court. Such
conduct would not only impede the rule of law, but also cause serious
damage to the judicial institution and judicial administration. Therefore,
such conduct of Respondent cannot be encouraged by this Court, taking
lenient view against such person who caused serious damage to the
judicial institution itself.
18. It can be seen that this Court passed orders in clear and
categorical terms that the orders/proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated
26.03.2018, whereunder the punishment of removal from service of the
petitioner was modified and directed to reinstate the petitioner into
service as a fresh RTC Constable purely on humanitarian grounds were
set aside on the ground that such a punishment is not prescribed as per
the Service Regulations, 1967. Accordingly, consequential orders dated
09.04.2018 in which the petitioner was reinstated into service afresh as a
RTC Constable also set aside. Therefore, reinstatement of the petitioner
as a RTC Constable afresh as a punishment is unknown to law.
Therefore, the matter is remanded to the respondent authorities for
::19::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023reconsideration of the case of the petitioner and impose punishment
against the petitioner in accordance with governing punishment
regulations of the respondent corporation.
19. As contended by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the
impugned proceedings dated 18.03.2024 in compliance of this Court is
nothing but reiterating the same punishment in a modified language and
the same is also not in accordance with Regulations, 1967 is valid and
reasonable for the reason that the petitioner was reinstated as afresh
only as RTC Constable at minimum time-scale, but conferring the
retirement benefits and modified with regard to benefits calculating his
past service is also not in accordance with the regulation, 1967.
Therefore, the directions of this Hon’ble Court remanding the matter for
fresh consideration was not complied with in true spirit, but by passing
impugned proceedings dated 18.03.2024, by reiterating similar order is
also unknown to law and clear deviation to the orders of this Court.
20. It is further observed that even though this Court specifically
directed the 3rd respondent in Writ Petition to comply with the orders of
this Hon’ble Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of the order, but for one reason or the other even though the
respondent received representation dated 06.02.2023 along with copy of
::20::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023the order and also legal notice dated 31.07.2023 passed the order dated
20.05.2023 is after a year. Later in supersession of that order issued
fresh proceedings dated 18.04.2024 during course of hearing of this
petition also after a period of more than a year, it is certainly failure and
deviation on part of the respondent in compliance of the orders of this
Court. It is settled law that once the authority suffered with an order from
this Court, it shall adhere to the terms of the orders of this Court without
there being any deviation. In the instant case the respondent herein
suffered an order dated 03.01.2023 which was received by the 3rd
respondent in Writ Petition on 06.02.2023, therefore, the 3rd respondent
therein is under obligation that he shall comply with the orders of this
Court and to pass orders afresh on or before 05.05.2023. No reasons
were assigned either in the order or in the affidavit/reply, but the
respondent issued proceedings dated 20.05.2023 reiterating the same
punishment ignoring the terms of the orders of this Court and again re-
issuing the orders on 18.03.2024 pending Contempt Case is nothing but
clear violation of the second limb of the order of this Court i.e., the orders
should be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of the order. Therefore, the respondent intentionally and
willfully delayed and disobeyed the orders of this Court, in passing the
order and communicating the same to the petitioner.
::21::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
21. As contended by learned counsel for Respondent since this Court
remanded the matter for fresh consideration, accordingly the respondent
in this Petition considered afresh and passed orders in compliance of the
orders of this Court. Therefore, the contention that the respondent has
duly complied with the orders of this Court is not valid and unacceptable
for the reason that, mere passing of the order as per the wish and will of
the respondent does not amount to compliance of the orders of this
Court. The action of the respondent is in deviation to the period fixed by
this Hon’ble Court. It is settled law that the compliance with delay cannot
be treated as compliance. Therefore, the respondent intentionally,
willfully and deliberately delayed in complying the orders of this Court
and also violated the orders of this Court, as explained above.
Therefore, the respondent is liable for punishment Under Sections 10
and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for the delay and eviation in
compliance of the orders of this Court.
22. As discussed above and in view of the findings recorded by this
Court in the above paragraphs, the respondent is liable for punishment
as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the respondent is
guilty with willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated
03.01.2023 in W.P. No. 47627 of 2018. However, this Court is taking
::22::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023lenient view that the respondent is already retired and became senior
citizen and also offered an unconditional apology to the Court.
Considering the factors as mentioned above, this Court is of the
considered view that the respondent is liable for punishment and
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thoussands Only)
from his own source of income, but not from public exchequer, within a
period of one (01) month from today, to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal
Services Authority. In default of payment, the respondent shall undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days.
23. In the result, contempt case is allowed, directing the respondent to
pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousands Only) within a period of
one (01) month from today, to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services
Authority.
24. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Dt: 20.06.2025
Krk
::23::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
25. After dictating the above order, learned counsel for Respondent
Contemnor requested this Court to suspend the above order, so as to
enable him to prefer an appeal.
26. At request of the learned counsel for Respondent/ Contemnor, the
above order is suspended for a period of four (04) weeks to prefer an
appeal. In case no appeal is preferred or no stay is granted by the
Appellate Court in the appeal if any preferred, Respondent Contemnor
shall surrender before Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh
on 21.07.2025 before 05.00 p.m to undergo sentence.
____________________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Date: 20.06.2025
KRK
::24::
NV,J
C.C.No.6771 of 2023THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
C.C.No.6771 of 2023
Dt: 20.06.2025
krk
[ad_2]
Source link