Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 1032
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BILAL NAZKI, RAMESH RANGANATHAN
In re - Appellant
Versus
V. Satyanaranaya Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 10/11/2007
Case No : Suo-Motu Contempt Case Nos.754 of 2007 and 755 of 2007
Headnote:
Constitution of India Article 215 – Contempt of Court Rules, 1980 – Rule 32(1) – Declare inaction of not giving them necessary police protection - Preliminary decree -Writ Petition filed by first respondent to declare the inaction of the respondent in not giving them necessary police protection, pursuant to his complaint illegal and for a consequential direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer, to give them police protection on the basis of their representation the affidavit, filed in support petitioner stated that Survey District admeasuring was item on the file of this Court, that, in the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed on that under a deed of assignment Kazim Nawaz Jung and M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited had assigned their share and interest in the said survey number in favour and others to an extent of Ac.98.10 guntas, pursuant thereto the petitioner had filed three applications which were all allowed, that they had filed before the District Judge District and taken delivery of possession on the Court bailiff, that subsequently they had filed Application seeking a final decree and a final decree was passed by a single Judge of this Court by order in respect of the land admeasuring Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner would submit that they had paid the deficit stamp duty for the final decree transaction was completed and their title and possession was confirmed –Held, Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings. Using the process of Court with the oblique motive of gaining advantage, albeit at the cost of sullying the pure stream of the judicial process, is interference with the due course of justice and obstructs the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with not only to punish them for the wrong done but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts, which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice while Courts are not hypersensitive and, ordinarily, impose the sentence of fine as punishment for contempt in the present case the first respondent-petitioner has used the Court as an instrument for the fraud played by him on the appellants in Writ Appeal and has by this process, deliberately flouted the order of injunction of the Principal District Judge Mere sentence of fine would, therefore, not suffice Rule 31 of the Contempt of Courts Rules, 1980, where a person charged with contempt is adjudged guilty, and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment, a warrant of commitment and detention shall be made out in Form IV. Rule 32(1) requires the Court to fix the subsistence allowance, in accordance with the status of the contemnor, when he is committed to civil prison. Under Rule 32(2), in the case of suo-motu contempt proceedings, such subsistence allowance shall be borne by the State. Rule 34(1) enables the Court to award such costs as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case first respondent is sentenced, under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of fifteen days and with fine accordance with Section 12(3), read with rule 32(1) & (2) of the Contempt of Courts Rules, 1980, the first respondent shall be detained in civil prison for a period of fifteen days. His daily subsistence allowance is fixed at Rs.150/-. The first respondent-petitioner shall in addition, under Rule 34(1), pay cost – Cases are disposed.
(Suo – Motu Contempt Case Under Article 215 of Constitution of India and Under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act R/w Rule 5 (a) of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980 to punish Respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner taken cognigency by the Order of the High Court dated 20-08-2007 during the course of hearing of and W.A.Nos.505 and 439 of 2007, who filed the WP.No.8857 of 2007 without making claim petitioners and without even making any other person a party to the writ petition by deceiving and praying fraud with this Hon’ble Court and with the Court of the District Judge.)
Common Order:
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
This Court by order dated 20.8.2007 initiated Suo motu contempt proceedings, in C.C.no.754 and 755 of 2007 in W.A.No.505 and 439 of 2007 respectively. Both the writ appeals were preferred, with the leave of the Court, by persons who, though not parties, are aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No.8857 of 2007 dated 26.4.2007.
W.P.No.8857 of 2007 was filed by the first respondent to declare the inaction of the respondent in not giving them necessary police protection, pursuant to his complaint dated 06.04.2007, as illegal and for a consequential direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and the Station House Officer, Kukatpalli to give them police protection on the basis of their representation dated 06.04.207. In the affidavit, filed in support of W.P.No.8857 of 2007, the petitioner stated that Survey No.172 of Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District admeasuring Ac.98.10 guntas was item No.38 of Schedule IV of C.S.No.14 of 1958 on the file of this Court, that, in the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 28.06.1963, that under a deed of assignment dated 29.11.1995 Kazim Nawaz Jung and M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited had assigned their share and interest in the said survey number in favour of Mirza Nazeer Baig and others to an extent of Ac.98.10 guntas, pursuant thereto the petitioner had filed three applications which were all allowed, that they had filed E.P.No.4 of 1996 before the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and taken delivery of possession on 17.04.1996 from the Court bailiff, that subsequently they had filed Application No.516 of 1998 seeking a final decree and a final decree was passed by a single Judge of this Court by order in C.S.No.14 of 1958 dated 24.04.1998 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.98.10 guntas in Sy.No.172 of Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner would submit that they had paid the deficit stamp duty for the final decree on 16.07.2007, that the transaction was completed and their title and possession was confirmed. According to the petitioner delivery of possession was recorded in the final decree, which has attained finality as no appeal was preferred thereagainst. The petitioner stated that some persons, claiming title from different sources, had filed time barred objections before the District Judge, that the Division Bench of this Court, in O.s.No.58 of 2004 and batch dated 23.06.2006, had held that the persons who were claiming independent title through different sources had no right over the property in C.S.No.14 of 1958, that ever since delivery of possession by the Court bailiff, they were in possession and enjoyment of the property and, while they were trying to fence the property to prevent illegal encroachments, some unidentified/unauthorized persons who had no right or title over the property, with the aid of anti-social elements, had tried to interfere with their possession and enjoyment on 06.04.2007 and had threatened them with dire consequences, that their names and addresses were not known to the petitioner, that except them no other person was in possession of the property, that they had made a representation on 6.04.2007 to the respondent seeking police protection, and, inspite of showing their documents of title and possession, the respondents were neither protecting their interests
