Back
Knowledge of Court Order Enough for Without Formal Service: Andhra Pradesh High Court
In a significant ruling on contempt jurisprudence, the has held that formal service of a court order is not a prerequisite for establishing if it is proven that the alleged had knowledge of the order and willfully disobeyed it. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed a contempt appeal filed by a Secretary, affirming that knowledge aliunde —through a standing counsel or circumstantial compliance with the order—is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the .
A Demolition That Defied a Order
The case arose from a property dispute in Brahmadevam village, SPSR Nellore District, where the had issued notices to certain residents directing them to remove alleged encroachments on public land. The residents challenged the notice before the High Court in W.P.No.7251 of 2018. On
, the writ court disposed of the petition with specific directions: the impugned notice was to be treated as a show cause notice, the was to furnish a copy of the survey report within three days, and the petitioners were granted two weeks from receipt of that report to file their explanation. Crucially, the court also ordered that the
"shall maintain
obtaining as on today"
until a final decision was taken and communicated.
The standing counsel for the , who was present during the hearing, undertook to instruct his client to comply with the direction regarding the survey report. Pursuant to this , the survey sketch was handed over to the petitioners on . However, before the two-week window for filing an explanation could expire on , the Secretary of the arrived at the site on with workers and police personnel and demolished part of the compound wall belonging to the petitioners.
The
's Defence:
"I Never Received the Order"
The appellant, V. Seenaiah , the Secretary of the , mounted a two-pronged defence before the contempt court. First, he contended that the copy of the High Court's order dated was only received by him through courier on —well after the demolition had occurred. Second, he argued that the petitioners themselves had given an on to voluntarily remove the encroachments by , and since they failed to do so, the demolition was carried out in good faith.
The learned Single Judge, however, rejected these contentions and found the guilty, sentencing him to two months of with a further direction to restitute the demolished property to its original state and pay costs of ₹10,000 to each petitioner. The was also warned that failure to effect within three months would attract an additional four months of .
Why Knowledge Trumps Formal Service
Before the Division Bench, Additional Advocate General , representing the appellant, placed heavy reliance on Salauddin Ahmed v. Samta Andolan (AIR 2012 SC 3891) and Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha ((2003) 11 SCC), arguing that without formal service of the order, no could be established.
The Division Bench, however, drew a critical distinction between and prohibitory orders. Citing
The Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union
(1970 (3) SCC 98), the Court reiterated that for a
—such as a direction—official service is not a condition precedent if the person had notice of the order
aliunde
and knew it was intended to be enforced. The Bench also relied on
Hoshiar Singh v. Gurbachan Singh
(1962 SCC OnLine SC 368), where the
had unequivocally stated that in matters of prohibitory orders,
"it is well-settled that it is not necessary that the order should have been served upon the party against whom it has been granted in order to justify committal for breach of such an order, provided it is proved that the person complained against had notice of the order aliunde."
The clinching evidence, the Court observed, was the furnishing of the survey sketch on —an act that could only have been performed pursuant to the standing counsel's in court on March 8. The Court recorded:
"Service of the copy of the survey report/sketch/map on 12.03.2018 to the petitioners would certainly be pursuant to the Writ Court's Order dated 08.03.2018, when the same is read along with the given by the learned standing counsel for to instruct the to serve copy of the survey report."
The Bench further noted that the appellant's own additional affidavit revealed he had contacted the standing counsel by phone on itself, confirming he was in regular communication with the counsel and could not claim ignorance.
A Pattern of Shifting Stands
The Division Bench did not mince words in pointing out the appellant's inconsistent pleadings. While the initial counter affidavit in the contempt case did not deny the service of the survey report on , the appellant attempted to retract this position only after the Single Judge recorded a finding of guilt on —nearly seven years later. The Court found this to be a deliberate attempt to mislead:
"The sole Respondent/ had made a futile effort before this Court in the present Contempt Proceeding to raise several inconsistent and unfounded pleas with a view to mislead this Court by showing wrong dates instead of being apologetic and showing an element of remorse."
The Bench also dismissed the argument that the petitioners' alleged
to demolish by
provided justification. Even assuming such an
existed, the Court held, it was rendered irrelevant the moment the High Court passed its order on
. The appellant could not
"proceed to demolish the building or any part thereof under pretext of the petitioners' representation."
as a Pillar of Contempt Jurisdiction
Upholding the Single Judge's direction for , the Division Bench drew strength from recent decisions in Amit Kumar Das v. Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust ((2024) 11 SCC 679) and State Bank of India v. Dr. Vijay Mallya ((2024) 12 SCC 85). The principle, the Court observed, is that punishment alone is insufficient —the must not be permitted to enjoy the fruits of his disobedience. The power to order , it held, is an independent and necessary complement to the punishment for contempt.
"Punishment is for committing the contempt of court. The power to order ... is for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the Court's Order."
The Final Verdict
Dismissing the contempt appeal, the Division Bench directed the appellant to surrender before the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court within one week for execution of the sentence. The Court also noted that the appellant's compliance with the and cost directions—reconstructing the demolished compound wall and paying ₹10,000 to each contempt petitioner—did not absolve him of the punishment, as those directions were supplementary to, and not in substitution of, the sentence imposed.
This judgment reinforces the principle that parties cannot exploit procedural technicalities to evade the binding force of court orders. Knowledge, once established through circumstantial evidence or the conduct of counsel, is sufficient to anchor a finding of —particularly when the order violated is prohibitory in nature and the disobedience is willful.
