Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.JAGANADHA RAO
V.C.GOVINDASWAMI MUDALI - Appellant
Versus
B.SUBBA REDDY ASST.COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS CHITTOOR, DY.COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS KAKINADA - Respondent
Decided On : 02-24-86
CONTEMPT OF COURT - CIVIL CONTEMPT - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE - INTENTION OR MENS REA - RELEVANCE - STANDARD OF PROOF - CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS - STRICT LIABILITY - EXCEPTIONS - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, SECTIONS 2(B), 2(C), 3, 12.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a contempt case against respondents 1 to 7 for breach of an order of the High Court dated 28-1-1985 in W.P-M.P. No. 998 of 1985 in W.P. No. 737/85. The 1st respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor) appointed respondents 3 to 1 as non-hereditary trustees of an endowment. The petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Commissioner questioning the same. A caveat was filed before the Joint Commissioner who still granted a stay. The respondents 3 to 7 then obtained suspension of the stay order from the Government, in further revision. The High Court earlier ordered status quo on 28-12-1984, to be maintained and ordered the Joint Commissioner to dispose of the matter finally. The Joint Commissioner, instead of disposing of the main case, advanced the same and on 9-1-85 vacated the stay granted on 5-12-1984, even though the status quo orders of the High court were in force. Against this order, the petitioner filed the present w.p. No. 737/85 on 25-1-1985 and obtained suspension thereof in W.P.M.P. No. 998/85 on 28-1-1985. The High Court passed the orders after hearing Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy who filed a caveat for respondents 3 to 7.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondents 2 to 7 were guilty of civil contempt. The Court found that the respondents had knowledge of the court's order before the oath was administered at 11.00 a.m. on 29-1-1985. The Court also found that the disobedience of the orders of the Court was clearly "wilful" and not casual or accidental or unintentional. The Court further held that even if intention or mens rea is to be established, the same is also established as against respondents 3 to 7 beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents 2 to 7 are guilty of civil contempt. 2. Whether intention or mens rea is relevant under the law of contempt, and if so, under what classes of contempt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the respondents 2 to 7 were guilty of civil contempt because they had knowledge of the court's order before the oath was administered and their disobedience of the orders of the Court was clearly "wilful". 2. The Court held that intention or mens rea is not relevant under the law of contempt in cases of civil contempt. The Court interpreted the words "wilful disobedience" used in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the same manner in which they have been interpreted in English law all along since 1910. The Court held that the question is only whether the breach was on account of wilful disobedience i.e., whether it was not casual or accidental and unintentional. Such intention will be relevant only in the context of the sentence.
Final Decision: The contempt case was allowed to the extent against respondents 2 to 7 and dismissed as against respondent No. 1. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/-.
( 1 ) THIS contempt case is filed by the petitioner against respondents 1 to 7 complaining breach of an order of this Court, dt. 28-1-1985 in W. P-M. P. No. 998 of 1985 in W. P. No. 737/85.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the 1st respondent (Asistant commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor) appointed respondents 3 to 1 as non-hereditary trustees of an endowment. The petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Commissioner questioning the same. A caveat was filed before the Joint Commissioner who still granted stay. The respondents 3 to 7 then obtained suspension of the stay order from the Government, in further revision. In W. P. No. 17000/84, this Court earlier ordered status quo on 28-12-1984, to be maintained and ordered the Joint Commissioner to dispose of the matter finally. The Joint Commissioner who called for records, instead of disposing the main case, advanced the same and on 9-1-85 vacated the stay granted on 5-12-1984, even though the status quo orders of the High court were in force. Against this order, the petitioner filed the present w. P. No. 737/85 on 25-1-1985 and obtained suspension thereof in W. P. M. P. No. 998/85 on 28-1-1985. This Court passed the orders after hearing sri M. Ramachandra Reddy who filed caveat for respondents 3 to 7.
( 3 ) MEANWHILE on 18-1-1985, the Assistant Commissioner had ordered that the 2nd respondent (Inspector) should swear respondents 3 to 7 at 11. 00 a. m. on 29-1-1985 at Papanaidupet which is 18 k. m. from Tirupathi. The petitioner s counsel issued a private telegram in the noon on 28-1-1985 and also got a court telegram issued in the evening. The petitioner also personally took a copy of the court telegram with the seal of the High Court and proceeded by bus and reached the village, according to him, by about 10. 00 a. m. on 29-1-1985 and claims to have informed the Inspector (2nd respondent) and respondents 3 to 7 well before 11. 00 a. m. about the court s orders. But in spite of it, it is alleged, the 2nd respondent has sworn respondents 3 to 7 as non-hereditary trustees at 11 00 a. m. Thereby it is alleged that the respondents 2 to 7 have committed civil contempt of this court s orders.
( 4 ) IN counters filed by the respondents 2 and 3 to 7 separately this is denied. Respondent No. 2 stated that the swearing ceremony and election of chairman started at 11. 00 a. m. and were all completed by 11 05 a. m when the petitioner allegedly reached the place and informed him about the court s orders He agreed that the petitioner filed a written objection before him but this was after the event. I have called for the records which contains this representation. In the petition, the petitioner signed and put the time as 10 00 a. m. and the tenor of the contents show that it was filed before the oath was administered.
( 5 ) THE question for consideration is: Whether the respondents 2 to 7 are guilty of civil contempt. Even if the oath was administered after knowledge of the Court s orders, it is argued by the learned Government pleader for the respondent 3, that there was no intention or mens rea on the part of respondents 1 to 7, and hence there is no civil contempt. He relied upon the rulings of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Satish Chandra and on K. R. Shenoy vs. Udipi Municipality.
( 6 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner, sri K. Durga Prasad, contended that this is a case of civil contempt and it is not necessary to prove intention or mtns rea but it is sufficient if the action is proved to amount to wilful disobedience as stated in Section 2 (b) of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is argued that the meaning of these words wilful disobedience is explained as long back as 1910 in Stancomb vs. Trawbridge Urban District Counsil and accepted by the Courts allthrough and recently by the House of Lords in Heaton Transport vs. T. G. W. U and that the present case falls within the scope of the said explanation.
( 7 ) IT is t
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
