ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Battu Devanand, J.
Raavi Naga Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Kiran Kumar – Respondent
Contempt Case No. 185 of 2021
Decided On : 30-01-2023
CONTEMPT OF COURT - WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE - ACT-SECTION REFERRED: CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, SECTIONS 10 TO 12 - SUMMARY: The court held that the respondent, a Panchayat Secretary, did not commit contempt of court by demolishing the petitioner's illegal encroachments on public road, as he had followed due process of law and acted in compliance with an earlier order of the court directing the removal of encroachments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a contempt case against the respondent, a Panchayat Secretary, alleging that the respondent had willfully disobeyed an order of the court by demolishing the petitioner's house without considering the petitioner's explanation and without following due process of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had served a copy of the order on the petitioner by way of substitute service and had proceeded to remove the illegal structures made by the petitioner in compliance with an earlier order of the court directing the removal of encroachments.
Issues: Whether the respondent had committed contempt of court by demolishing the petitioner's house without considering the petitioner's explanation and without following due process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent had not committed contempt of court because he had followed due process of law and acted in compliance with an earlier order of the court directing the removal of encroachments.
Final Decision: The court closed the contempt case.
JUDGMENT
Battu Devanand, J. - This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the Order dated 20.10.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19133 of 2020.
2. Heard Sri P. Kameshwara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record.
3. The petitioner filed W.P.No.19133 of 2020 against the action of the respondent herein in issuing notice dated 09.10.2020 and trying to demolish the petitioner house/property vide D.No.2-317 situated at Inkollu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.
4. This Court disposed of the said W.P.No.19133 of 2020 on 20.10.2020, directing the respondent herein to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 12.10.2020 to the notice issued by them on 09.10.2020 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and till such time, all the parties are directed to maintain status quo.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, inspite of specific direction of this Court vide order dated 20.10.2020, the respondent did not consider the explanation dated 12.10.2020 submitted by the petitioner and intentionally took steps for demolition of the property without following due process of law. It is further submitted that, in view of the arbitrary action of the respondent, the petitioner got issued a notice to the respondent on 18.01.2021 through e-mail and registered post. After receipt of the contempt notice, the respondent came to the land of the petitioner along with his men and machinery and highhandedly demolished the structures.
6. Learned counsel submits that the respondent deliberately flouted the orders of this Court. The failure on the part of the respondent in implementing the orders of this Court would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court, and, therefore, he is liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Complaining the same, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case.
7. The respondent - Panchayat Secretary filed counter affidavit stating that, aggrieved by the illegal encroachments on public road, a Public Interest Litigation vide W.P.(PIL) No.242 of 2020 was filed and a Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order on 23.09.2020 directing to take immediate measures after noticing such encroachments and take appropriate steps that such encroachments, if any can be removed.
8. The respondent submits that, in terms of order in W.P.(PIL) No.242 of 2020 dated 23.09.2020, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 09.10.2020 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.10.2020. But, without awaiting any order, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.19133 of 2020 which was disposed on 20.10.2020, directing the respondent herein to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 12.10.2020 to the notice issued on 09.10.2020 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and till such time, all the parties are directed to maintain status quo.
9. It is further submitted that, the Tahsildar has conducted a survey in terms of the order in W.P.(PIL) No.242 of 2020 dated 23.09.2020 and submitted a report stating that there are about 493 illegal encroachments and as such, the respondent has issued notices to all the illegal encroachers on 28.11.2020 including the petitioner. The petitioner has sent explanation on 28.11.2020 through registered post and the same was received by the respondent on 19.12.2020. Thereafter, having considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an order was passed on 08.01.2021 requesting the petitioner to remove the illegal constructions in terms of the order in W.P.(PIL) No.242 of 2020 dated 23.09.2020.
10. The respondent submits that, a contempt case was filed in W.P.(PIL) No.242 of 202
Contempt of Court arises when a party fails to comply with court orders, violating the principles of natural justice and due process.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for clear evidence of willful disobedience and the need to establish knowledge of the court's order before holding a party liable for contempt.
Compliance with court orders is crucial, and the court will take into account the actions of the parties in determining contempt cases.
The court found no willful disobedience of a prior court order, leading to the dismissal of the contempt petition.
Failure to comply with an interim order must be deliberate for civil contempt; mere procedural compliance suffices to dismiss claims of willful disobedience.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.