Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, GHULAM MOHAMMED
A.Santhi Kumari, I.A.S., Secretary., A.P.Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad. - Appellant
Versus
K.Ravi - Respondent
Decided On : 11-18-02
Civil Suit - Contempt of courts Act. 1971 – Sub – Section (3) of Section 19 - Section 2 (b) – Constitution of India - Article 215, Article 226 - Appellant herein is a serving Indian administrative Service Officer posted as secretary. A. P. Social Welfare Residential educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad - Allegation against her is that she deliberately flouted and failed to comply with directions of this Court issued in W. P. No - It is required to notice relevant averments made in affidavit accusing appellant herein to have committed contempt of court in language of respondents:"while so, learned counsel appearing for respondent-society seems to have misrepresented orders in different manner stating that orders are in favor of respondent-society and Writ Appeal filed by them was allowed and therefore, Petitioners and other petitioners promotions can be withdrawn - Petitioners and other petitioners shocked to know same and rushed to society office and enquired into - Having found that said fact is correct, immediately approached counsel for petitioners and got issued two legal notices clarifying Judgment of Division bench, even then respondent- society has put up file and disturbing promotions which were already given to other petitioners and denying promotions to petitioners herein which amounts to deliberate disobedience of orders of Hon ble Court – Held, Court says that our considered opinion, order passed by appellant herein rejecting claim of respondents-writ petitioners for their promotion cannot be held to be contumacious - It is not in teeth of order passed by this Court in W. P. No. where under Court directed appellant herein to consider cases of respondents-writ petitioners for their promotions as Post Graduate Teachers - Said order cannot be characterized as an order suffering from lack of bona fide - Contempt Case filed by respondents herein is totally misconceived and not maintainable in law since order passed by learned Single Judge in W. P got merged into judgment passed by division Bench in W. A - On account of such merger, order passed by learned Single Judge in W. P has become unenforceable - Judgment passed by Division Bench while disposing of W. A which has become final, alone is in operation and thus enforceable - Appellant herein did not commit any civil contempt since proceedings have been issued pursuant to directions of learned Single judge - There is no willful or deliberate attempt on part of appellant herein to intentionally flout or disobey orders passed by this Court - Proceedings issued by appellant herein are not susceptible to be judicially reviewed while adjudicating contempt case and matter could have been left open to enable respondents to challenge said order by initiating appropriate proceedings - Appeal Allowed.
( 1 ) THIS Contempt Appeal is directed against the order dated 27-9-2002 made in contempt Case No. 704 of 2002 by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge by the said order dt. 27-9-2002 punished the appellant herein with imprisonment to stand up in the Court till the Court raises and to pay Rs. 2,000 as fine within two weeks and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The said order is challenged on various grounds by the appellant.
( 2 ) IN order to consider the various submissions made on behalf of the appellant herein challenging the impugned order, it may be necessary to notice certain basic statutory features enshrined in the contempt of Courts Act. 1971 (for short the act ).
( 3 ) THE Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced in the statute-book for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for due and proper administration of justice. It is a powerful weapon in the hands of the law courts.
( 4 ) SECTION 2 (a) of the Act defines contempt of Court . It means civil contempt or criminal contempt. Section 2 (b) of the Act in its turn says that civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
( 5 ) SECTION 12 of the Act provides for punishment for contempt of court and it says that a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term, which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. The apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bonafide.
( 6 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of Section 12 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.
( 7 ) SECTION 19 of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt- (a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two judges of the Court: (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme court. Pending any appeal, the appellate court may order the suspension of the execution of the punishment or order appealed against and release the appellant on bail if he is in confinement and hear the appeal notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt.
( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of Section 19 of the Act enables an aggrieved person to pray for suspension of the execution of the punishment or order even without preferring an appeal, provided he satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal. The rest of the provisions are not required to be noticed.
( 9 ) IT has been repeatedly held by the higher Courts in India that power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system. Such power is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice.
( 10 ) IN Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. , Lord Diplock observed that"there is an element of public policy in punishing civil contempt, since administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any court of law could be disregarded with impunity".
( 11 ) IN Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court observed that"for holding the respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been wilful disobedience of the judgment o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
