M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 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 (Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor) appointed respondents 3 to 7 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 pasted the orders after hearing Sri M. Ramchandra 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 inspite 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 2 to 7, and hence there is no civil contempt. He relied upon the rulings of the supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Satis Chandra (1) (A-1 R. 1980 SC 600) and on KR Shenoy vs. Udipi Municipality (2) (A. I. R. 1976 SC 994 ).

( 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 mens 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. Trowbridge Urban District Council (3) (1910) 2 Ch. 190 and accepted by the Courts althrough and. recently by the House of Lords in Heaton transport vs. T. G. W. U. (4) (1973

Click Here to Read the rest of this document