Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Sri M.R.Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Ch Ramesh - Respondent
Contempt Appeal Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of 2023
Decided On : 21-05-2025
Key Points: - The appeals under Section 19 are maintainable even without a punishment order, as "any order or decision" includes non-punitive directives and requires informing the parties of contempt allegations. (!) (!) (!) - The wordings of Section 19 indicate that an appeal can lie against any order or decision, not only against punishment, and includes orders in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. (!) (!) (!) - Form I can function as the charge in contempt proceedings, and mere absence of a separately framed charge does not invalidate proceedings if the contemnors were informed of the allegations via Form I. (!) (!) (!) - The directive to consider representations and pass an appropriate order can be treated as compliance if the resultant order adequately contemplates the merits; improper or wilful non-compliance is needed to sustain contempt. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court distinguishes between wilful disobedience and mere compliance, emphasizing that due consideration and reasoned decision-making are required to constitute valid contempt. (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeals are consolidated for a common judgment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the appeals challenge a contempt order based on prior court directives. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. previous court orders and recruitment details are crucial to the case. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. appellants argue against the contempt order's legality. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. respondents assert contempt due to non-compliance with court orders. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 6. key issues include appeal maintainability and charge framing. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. interpretation of section 19 of the contempt of courts act is critical. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. an appeal can challenge any order made in contempt proceedings. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. framing of charges in contempt proceedings must meet specific requirements. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. form i serves as a charge notice in contempt cases. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 11. the nature of the original court order affects compliance assessment. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 12. consideration of representations is crucial in evaluating compliance. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 13. determination of contempt hinges on the nature of the order and compliance. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 14. the final order quashes the contempt conviction, emphasizing compliance. (Para 44 , 48) |
JUDGMENT :
P. Sam Koshy, J.
1. Since the issue arising in the instant appeals is one and the same, they are taken up for analogous hearing and are decided by way of this common judgment.
2. Heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi and Bathula Raj Kiran, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Aka Venkataramana, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The instant appeals are filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The challenge is to the common order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Singh Bench of this High Court in a batch of contempt cases decided analogously; lead case being C.C.No.1530 of 2019.
4. Vide the impugned common order, the Hon’ble Singh Bench while hearing the batch of contempt petitions has held that the appellants herein have been found guilty of contempt and are liable to be convicted for wilful violation of the order dated 18.07.2019 passed in W.P.No.10572 of 2012.
5. The relevant material necessary for adjudicating the instant appeals are certain orders which need to be borne in mind before we proceed to decide the matter itself. The order against which the contempt petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Singh Bench was one decided on 18.07.2019 in W.P.No.10572 of 2012. The necessary operative part of the said writ petition is being reproduced hereunder:
“The petitioners further contended that only after disposal of the case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents have finally filled up 193 posts in 2012 and among 193 posts, 33 posts remained unfilled, and subsequently, the respondent Corporation has filled up another 200 posts, and in the second recruitment also 17 posts remained unfilled, thus, in all, 50 posts are lying vacant. The petitioners contended that they are the next meritorious candidates and the respondents must consider their cases against the 50 non-joined vacant posts. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondent Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Sub-Staff (Peon) in 50 non-joined vacancies in pursuance to the notification, dated 17.07.1996.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents had contended that the petitioners are not coming within the zone of consideration and 400 candidates were employed and that is the reason why the respondent Corporation has not considered the case of the petitioners. He further contended that if the petitioners are the next meritorious candidates and submits a representation, the respondent Corporation will consi
The appeals under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act are maintainable even without a punishment order, as 'any order or decision' includes non-punitive directives, provided the parties are info....
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt; non-punitive orders are not appealable.
Contempt jurisdiction must adhere to strict procedural norms and should not incorporate issues merits of the underlying dispute, as confirmed by established legal precedents.
The court clarified that in contempt proceedings, the judge's role is limited to assessing compliance with prior orders, not issuing new directives, emphasizing the maintainability of appeals under S....
The contempt jurisdiction is to ensure compliance with the order of the Writ Court and cannot be used to review or challenge the correctness of the order passed in compliance with the direction of th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the appealability of a contempt Judge's order under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules....
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
