Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kalidindi Sunil Kumar vs Smt K Madhavalatha on 27 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR |
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5088 OF 2022
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to
punish the respondents herein for deliberate and willful violation of the
orders dated 04-08-2022 passed in WP. No.24500 of 2022 passed by this
Hon'ble Court.
Between:
Kalidindi Sunil Kumar, S/o. Raja Rao, 44 years, R/o. 1-124, Rajavolu
Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East Godavari District
...Petitioner
AND
1. Smt K Madhavalatha IAS, The District Collector, East Godavari District
At Rajamahendravaram.
2. Srinivas, Deputy Tahsildar, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East
Godavari District.
3. G. Veera Venkata Kasi Viswanadham, Panchayat Secretary, Rajavolu
Grama Pancahavat, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East Godavari
District.
4. Kollu Rama Rao, Village Revenue Officer, Rajavolu Village
Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East Godavari District.
5. Kranthi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajamahendravaram Urban
East Godavari District.
6. Pirla Srinivas, S/o. Ramakrishna, D. No. 103-1-68, 1st Block, Rajavolu
Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East Godavari District.
7.
Pirla Ramakrishna, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 40 years. D.
No. 103-1-68, 1st Block, Rajavolu Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural
Mandal, East Godavari District.
...Respondents
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to grant leave to implead respondent No.2 and 4 to 7 as parties to
the present contempt case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. TVS Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4: Sri. P Subash
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri. N Srihari (Standing Counsel for
ZPP MPP and Gram Panchayat)
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: Sri. V Maheswar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: Sri. Neelothpal Ganji
The Court made the following:
APHC010507552022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5088/2022
Between;
Kalidindi Sunil Kumar ...Petitioner
AND
Smt K Madhavalatha and Others ...Contemnors
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. TVS PRABHAKARA RAO
Counsel for the Contemnors:
1. P SUBASH
2. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM
PANCHAYAT)
3. NEELOTHPAL GANJI
4. V MAHESWAR REDDY
The Court made the following order:
This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful
disobedience of the orders dated 04.08.2022 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.24500 of 2022.
2
wr
W.P.No.5088 of202^
2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondents.
3.
The case of the petitioner is that, even though this Court pleased to
pass an interim order dated 04.08.2022, the respondents wilfully violated
the order of this Court and demolished the structures of the petitioner.
Hence this contempt case.
4. This Court passed an interim order dated 04.08.2022 in I.A.No.1 of
2022 in W.P.No.24500 of 2022, which is extracted hereunder:
''For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying
affidavit and considering the submissions made by both
the learned counsels, the respondents are directed not
to demolish the "Tatched House" bearing door No. 1-124
(old No. 1-73) in Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal,
East Godavari District, pursuant to the notice dated
28.07.2022 issued by the 3^^ respondent including
dispossession from the site of an extent of 194.33
sq.yds and further directed to restore the power supply
to the said ''Tatched House". "
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 04.08.2022, this
Court after hearing both the learned counsel passed an interim order
directing the respondents not to demolish the "Tatched House" of the
petitioner. The order of this Court was informed immediately by way of
whatsapp message and this Court also directed the learned counsel for
the respondents to inform the order of this Court today itself.
3
NV,J
W.P.No.5088of2022
6. He submitted that on the next day, i.e on 05.08.2022, the
petitioner received a copy of the order through WhatsApp from the
counsel and showed it to the respondents on the same day when they
visited to the site. The 2^^ respondent, refused to consider the WhatsApp
message, stating that it would not be accepted unless the petitioner
furnished physical copy of order issued by the Court. The attitude of the
respondents is ex-facie illegal and unjust and the respondent informed the
petitioner that the Collector has directed to demolish the same. Then, the
respondents demolished the Tatched House without allowing the
petitioner to remove their household items, which were thrown outside of
House premises.
7. He further submitted that the respondent Nos.2 to 4, along with their
staff, and with the help of the 5^^ respondent including respondent Nos.6
and 7, high-handedly demolished the "Thatched House" on 05.08.2022,
using a JCB, and took away the belongings i.e., cement poles, barbed
wire, wooden poles, and the wooden main door, as evident from the
photographs filed herewith.
8. Whereas, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3
filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the Hon'ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in I.A.No.1 of 2022 passed an interim direction on
04.08.2022, which was received by the 3'"'^ respondent on 08.08.2022
through a Registered Post.
I
4
W.P.No.5088 of 202^
9. It is further submitted that after the eviction of the cattle hut erected
by the petitioner on 05.08.2022, the interim orders in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in
W.P.No.24500 of 2022, dated 04.08.2022, were communicated to the
respondent in the evening of 05.08.2022. Furthermore, it is pertinent to
note that the registered document filed by the petitioner is null and void,
as the death certificates of Godavari Tataraju, Godavari Achiyamma, and
Godavari Nageswarao, submitted for registration, were found to be fake
and not registered in the Death register available at the Gram Panchayat,
Rajavolu.
10. It is submitted that the act of demolition was done in accordance
with the procedure contemplated under law and as per G.O.Ms. No.188
dated 21.07.2011. It is pertinent to note that most of the demolition
(approximately 65%) was demolished on 02.08.2022 itself. Subsequently,
the rest of the demolition process was finished on 05.08.2022. It is
submitted that during the course of the demolition process, no orders of
this Hon'ble High Court were communicated to the Gram Panchayat or to
the 3^"^ respondent. It is pertinent to note that once the demolition was
finished, the petitioner has approached the Deputy MRO on 05.08.2022 in
the evening and then he showed the orders of this Hon'ble High Court.
The Deputy MRO then communicated the said order to the
S'"* respondent. It is submitted that as contended by the petitioner, the
petitioner did not communicate the order to the 3'"* respondent and the 3'"'
respondent has received the communication from the Deputy MRO only.
5
NV,J
W.P.No.5088of2022
11. To resolve the disputed facts surrounding the demolition of the
house, this Court ordered a judicial inquiry by the Judicial First Class
Magistrate (JFCM), Rajamahendravaram, as per its orders dated
28.06.2024 to ascertain whether the demolition was taken place prior to
the orders or after orders of this Court. Pursuant to this, the JFCM,
Rajamahendravaram, submitted a 3''^ party report dated 15.07.2024,
which was received by this Court, and it states as follows:
"After inspecting the disputed site, on my enquiry and
the statements of above said villagers, I being the
enquiry officer opined that on 02.08.2022 at about 4.00
PM, the Panchayati Secretary, Rajavolu Village,
Revenue authorities had removed most of the structure
of hut and only the poles were left over and due to light
failure and also dispute between the
officials/respondents and petitioner, they stopped
removing the hut of the petitioner and again on
04.08.2022 the revenue authorities along with police
came to the disputed site and removed the entire
structure of the hut belonging to the petitioner and the
Panchayati Authorities had kept the timber and other
items of the removed structure in their safe custody.
"
12. 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
1
6
NV^
W.P.No.5088 Of202^
respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and give different
meaning to the order passed by this Court, which is sought to be
implemented, as directed by this Court. Such an 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. Muddaiah\ 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 wouid 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.
32. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It
is true that while granting a reiief 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, where ex
facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite
^ (2007) 7 see 689
7
NVJ
W.P.No.5088 of 2022
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
order 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.
w:P.No.5088of2022
13.
The same view is expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prithawi
Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others^, 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 is
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.
14.
While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really
concerned with the question as to whether the interim order of this Court
^ 2 (2004) 7 see 261
1
9
NV,J
W.P.No.5088of2022
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 the respondent
could have done was to assail the correctness of the order/judgment
before the Higher Court. But, the respondents 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.
15. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to
the present facts of the case, this Court can safely conclude that
Respondent No.2 - Sri Srinivas, Respondent No.3 - Sri G.Veera Venkata
Kasi Viswanadham and Respondent No.4 -Sri Kollu Rama Rao, ex facie
committed Contempt of Court, as defined under Section 2(c) of the
10
A/V'^
W.P.No.5088 of 202^
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and liable for punishment under Section 12
of the Act.
16. As discussed above, and in view of the findings recorded by this
Court in the above paragraphs. Respondent No.2 - Sri Srinivas,
Respondent' No.3^ - Sri G.Veera Venkata Kasi Viswanadham and
Respondent No.4 -Sri Kollu Rama Rao, are liable for punishment as per
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and thereby they are
punished sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of
one (01) month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand
only) each.
17. In the result, contempt case is allowed, directing , Respondent No.2
- Sri Srinivas, Respondent No.3 - Sri G.Veera Venkata Kasi Viswanadham
and Respondent No.4 -Sri Kollu Rama Rao to undergo simple
imprisonment for a term of one (01) month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-
(Rupees two thousand only) each.
18. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall
stand closed.
11
NV,J
W.P.No.5088 of 2022
19. After dictating the above order, learned counsel for Respondent
Nos.2 to 4/Contemnor Nos.2 to 4 requested this Court to suspend the
above order, so as to enable them to prefer an appeal.
20. At request of the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4/
Contemnor Nos.2 to 4, 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 Nos.2 to 4/ Contemnor Nos.2 to 4 shall surrender before
Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 24.12.2024 before
05.00 p.m to undergo sentence.
Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
2. Smt K Madhavalatha IAS, The District Collector, East Godavari District
At Rajamahendravaram.
3. Sri Srinivas, Deputy Tahsildar, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East
Godavari District.
4. Sri G. Veera Venkata Kasi Viswanadham, Panchayat Secretary,
Rajavolu Grama Pancahavat, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East
Godavari District.
5. Sri Kollu Rama Rao, Village Revenue Officer, Rajavolu
Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East Godavari District.
6. Sri Kranthi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajamahendravaram
Urban, East Godavari District.
7. Pirla Srinivas, S/o. Ramakrishna, D. No. 103-1-68, 1st Block, Rajavolu
Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, Eaist Godavari District.
8. Pirla Ramakrishna, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 40 years. D.-
No. 103-1-68, 1st Block, Rajavolu Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural
Mandal, East Godavari District.
9. One CC to Sri. TVS Prabhakara Rao Advocate [OPUC
10. One CC to Sri. P Subash Advocate [OPUC]
11.One CC to Sri. N Srihari (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and Gram
Panchayat) Advocate [OPUC]
12. One CC to Sri. V Maheswar Reddy Advocate [OPUC]
13. One CC to Sri. Neelothpal Ganji Advocate [OPUC]
14. The Section Officer, Account Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravati.
15. Three CD Copies
SAM
HIGH COURT
DATED:27/11/2024
ORDER
CC.No.5088 of 2022
AND/^
*
o
2 0 DEC 202^1 o»ii
^ . Curreni Secuon ^
ALLOWING THIS CONTEMPT CASE