Administrative duties cannot justify willful non-compliance with court orders, and apologies in contempt matters must be genuine to be considered.

Judgment :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

The 1^st respondent herein had approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.9425 of 2013, seeking a direction to the respondents therein to issue ryotwari patta and pattdar pass book and title deeds in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2.88 ½ cents of dry land in Sy.No.131/2 and 135 of Dondapadu Village, Pedavegi, West Godavari District. This Writ Petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the state of Andhra Pradesh, by an order dated 09.04.2013, permitting the petitioner to submit applications in the prescribed forum, for issuance of ryotwari patta, pattadar pass book and title deeds within two weeks from the date of order upon which the respondents 2 and 4, namely the Joint Collector/Settlement Officer, West Godavari District and the Tahsildar, Eluru, West Godavari District were to consider such applications and pass orders there upon in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter and communicate their decision to the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein).

2. As there was no compliance of this order, despite the 1^st respondent having filed his application, C.C.No.1879 of 2013 came to be filed by the 1^strespondent. It was the case of the 1^st respondent that he had filed an application on 20.04.2013, and the three months period stipulated by the Court expired on 20.06.2013. However, no action was taken amounting to violation of the orders of the contempt of the Court.

3. On 27.09.2024, the learned Single Judge was informed that the application of the petitioner was considered and rejected. The learned Single Judge called upon the respondents 2 and 3, in the Contempt Case, to explain the delay of 14 months in complying with the directions of the Court. A counter affidavit was filed by the Tahsildar, setting out the manner in which the application has been dealt with. The learned Single Judge found that the Tahsildar had submitted his report, on the application of the respondent, within a period of three months but the Joint Collector, who is the appellant herein had not disposed of the application nor considered the said report, for a long time, resulting in a delay of 14 months, after the expiry of the time granted by the Court.

4. The appellant herein sought to justify the inordinate delay by contending that he had been busy with the Panchayat elections, elections to local bodies, the General elections and the rehabilitation and relief work that had to be carried out on account of the Helen and Neelam Cyclones. It was also contended that the Samaikhya Andhra agitation had also disrupted his work.

5. The learned Single Judge refused to accept this explanation on the ground that the administrative duties of the appellant cannot take precedence over his obligation to comply with the orders of this Court. Apart from this, the learned Single Judge also went into the period for which such administrative duties could have been cited and held that the appellant was guilty of being indifferent, to the orders of the Court and of willful and deliberate violation of the orders of the Court.

6. The learned Single Judge, after an extensive review of the law in this regard and the law in regard to the manner in which a Court should consider an apology tendered by a contemnor, had also held that the apology tendered by the appellant, was only a proforma apology and not a genuine apology which required consideration.

7. The learned Single Judge had there upon convicted the appellant herein for contempt of the orders of the Court and sentenced him to payment of a fine of Rs.2,000/- within four months from the date of the order.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has moved the present Contempt Appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that it was only the administrative work and