THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.977 of 2010 Date:21st January, 2011 Between: Maradani Venkata Lakshmana Someswara Rao. ... Petitioner a n d 1. Sri A.Vani Prasad, District Collector & District Magistrate-cum- Chairman, District level Committee, Eluru, West Godavari District & Ors. … Respondents *** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.977 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This contempt Case has been filed by Maradani Venkata Lakshmana Someswara Rao complaining disobedience of the order, dated 22.06.2010, passed in WPMP No.17952 of 2010 in WP No.14274 of 2010. 2. The material facts relevant to the questions arising in the Contempt Case are summarised as hereunder: Maradani Venkata Lakshmana Someswara Rao-the petitioner is the owner and possessor of Ac.11.12 cents comprising S.Nos.35/4, 35/5, 36/1, 36/2 and 54/1 situated at Veeramakunta Village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. He submitted an application to the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Eluru, on 31.07.2009, for grant of permission to convert the land into fish tank. He paid requisite fee of Rs.2,400/- to the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Eluru, West Godavari District, by way of demand draft bearing No.290889, dated 29.07.2009, drawn on Indian Overseas bank, Xavier Nagar Branch, Eluru, West Godavari District. Under G.O.Ms.No.18, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 28.03.2008, once a prospective fish farmer files properly filled in application form (along with copies of proof of ownership of land/lease deed papers executed with owner of land) in the Fisheries Department, seeking licence to take up construction of new aqua culture pond, information shall be communicated to the farmer (either issuing licenses or rejecting the same citing the reasons) by the officials concerned within two months from the date of filing of application. If no such communication is received from the authorities within two months from the date of application, the applicant can go ahead with construction of new pond and the licence is deemed to be issued. The officials of the Fisheries Department neither rejected the application nor communicated any information according approval. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to have been accorded permission as per G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 26.03.2008. The petitioner commenced digging of the fish tank in the lands owned by him. Whileso, the Officials of the Fisheries Department and the Revenue Department, interfered with the digging of the fish tank by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14274 of 2010 seeking the following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents herein interfering with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of his lands viz., of Ac.11.12 cents in R.S.Nos.35/5, 36/1, 36/2, 35/4, 54/1, and 35/4 situated at Veeramakunta Village, Pedapadu mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish-II) Dept., dated 12.9.2007 r/w.G.O.Ms.No.18 by Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish-II) Dept., dated 26.03.2008 and consequently declare that the petitioners have deemed permission pursuant to the application dated 31.07.2009 for converting the petitioner’s lands into fish tanks and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.” He also moved WPMP No.17952 of 2010 seeking interim relief. An interim order came to passed on 22.06.2010, which reads as hereunder: “Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for the Respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that that in similar circumstances in WPMP No.5933 of 2010 in W.P.No.4613 of 2010, this Court granted interim order directing the respondents not to interfere with the fishing activities of the petitioners therein, and therefore, the petitioner herein deserves the same interim order. Such is the situation, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s fishing activities, if his application dated 31.07.2009, for grant of permission has not been disposed of within 60 days as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.18, AHDD & F (F.ii) Department, dated 26.03.2008.” The petitioner filed C.C.No.977 of 2010 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (for short, ‘the Act’), complaining disobedience of the order, dated 22.06.2010, passed in WPMP No.17952 of 2010 in WP No.14274 of 2010. According to the petitioner, the respondents interfered with his work of converting lands into fish tank and seized poclaimers on 03.07.2010, despite the interim order passed by this Court on 22.06.2010. For better appreciation of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paras.8 to 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case, which read as hereunder: “8. I respectfully submit pursuant to the orders of this Hon’ble Court, again I started digging of the fish tanks in my respective land. The 1st respondent initially directed the Respondents 2 & 3 to inspect the fish tanks and also directed them to enquire whether I am having valid permission or not. The reason for enquiring with regard to my having permission is that the 4th respondent made a complaint to the 1st respondent that I am digging the fish tanks without a valid permission. The 2nd and 3rd respondents inspected the lands and verified the relevant papers and I learn and believe the same to be true that they sent a report to the 1st respondent that I am digging the fish tanks legally. Thereafter, the 4th respondent along with some villagers staged dharna before the Collectorate requesting the Collector to stop the digging activity of mine. The 1st respondent came to my lands on 3.7.2010 and inspected the lands in my presence and I showed the relevant papers including the orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 22.6.2010 and I requested the 1st respondent to permit me to dig the fresh fish tanks pursuant to the orders of this Hon’ble Court and also pursuant to my application dated 31.7.2009. The 1st respondent did not hear to obey the orders of this Hon’be Court and directed the sub-ordinates to seize the proclainers and directed them not to allow me to dig the fish tanks in spite of the Hon’ble Court orders. I submit on the very same day, the proclainers were seized by the Respondents 1 to 3 and not allowed to continue with my digging activities. 9. I humbly submit thereafter the District Collector issued Notice No.1800/A3/2007-7, dated 4.7.2010 to me asking me to stop the digging the fish tanks on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.83, dt.12.9.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 26.03.2008 were superseded by G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 9.4.2010 and further informed that my application will not be finalized as per the earlier G.O.Ms.No.83 Animal Husbandry & Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish-II) Dept., dated 12.09.2007 r/w.G.O.Ms.No.18 Animal Husbandry & Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish-II) Dept., dated 26.03.2008 and appropriate orders will be passed on my application dated 31.07.2009 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 9.4.2010. 10. I respectfully submit as stated earlier my application is dated 31.7.2009 and as per G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 26.3.2008, I am deemed to be granted permission after expiry of two months and I have a deemed permission to dig the fresh fish tanks from 1.10.2009. hence, the question of disposing of my application as per G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 9.4.2010 is not applicable to my case and the said G.O. is having only prospective effect and the licence already granted to me cannot be taken away pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 9.4.2010. I submit that the notice of the 1st respondent in No.1800/A3/2007-7, dated 4.7.2010 is contrary to the orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 22.6.2010 in W.P.M.P.No.17952/2010 in W.P.No.14274/2010.” 3. Form-I notice came to be issued on 31.08.2010. The respondents 1 to 3 appeared in person before the Court on 04.10.2010. The presence of the respondents 1 to 3 came to be dispensed with until further orders as per Orders passed in C.A.No.999 of 2010 and C.A.No.977 of 2010, dated 25.10.2010. 4. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit on 11.08.2010 and additional counter affidavit on 21.10.2010. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit/additional counter affidavit is:- The respondents filed petition to vacate the interim orders and their vacate stay petition being WVMP No.3100 of 2010 is pending consideration. The petitioner land is not situated in low lying area. All the S.C., S.T. and B.C. people belong to Veerammakunta village staged a dharna on 3.7.2010 protesting conversion of the land owned by the petitioner into fish tank on the ground that the conversion of agricultural land into fish tank would inundate the S.C. colony. The 1st respondent directed the respondents 2 and 3 to visit Veerammakunta village and submit a report. The 2nd respondent submitted a report and invoked the provisions under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to abstain from digging the fish tank and also prohibited the assembling of five or more persons in the village limits of Veerammakunta, hamlet of Pedapadu, so as to maintain public tranquillity in the village. The 1st respondent visited the village and directed the 3rd respondent to see that the poclaimer (JCB) shall not proceed with the fish tank and release the seized proclaimers after obtaining undertaking from the owners and accordingly, the proclaimers were released on 5.7.2010. The limit of 60 days prescribed for scrutiny of the applications submitted for grant of permission for conversion of agricultural lands into fish tank has been deleted by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09.04.2010. However, the respondents offered their unconditional apology. It is stated in the additional counter- affidavit that due to inadvertence, the 1st respondent did not state that by the time of filing of the counter-affidavit, the period of 15 days prescribed in the proceeding issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C. have been lapsed. Paras.2 and 3 of the additional counter-affidavit need to be noted and they are thus: “2. It is submitted that I have already filed my counter in the above said Contempt Case and the same may be read as part of this affidavit for the purpose of brevity. Due to inadvertence I did not state that by the time of filing of this counter affidavit that the proceedings under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. initiated by the 2nd respondent in M.C.No.4/2010, for a period of 15 days have been lapsed by 18.07.2010. Though it is specifically pleaded in the counter that due to law and order problem, the 2nd respondent has initiated Section 144 proceedings under Cr.P.C. to maintain peace and tranquillity in Veerammakunta Village, expiry of the tenure of the Section 144 proceedings is not mentioned in the affidavit. The said mistake is neither wilful nor wanton. It may not be out of place to mention here that only after initiation of Section 144 of Cr.P.C. proceedings the law and order problem in the Veerammakunta Village was under control. 3. It is submitted that I am a law abiding citizen and I have got great respect to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court. I have never violated any orders passed by this Hon’ble court much less the order dt:22.06.2010. I believe that I have not committed any violation of the orders dt:22.06.2010. However, I offer my unconditional apology for any violation of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in interfering with the work of the petitioner in converting the land into fish tank on 3.7.2010 amounts to gross disobedience of the interim order, dated 22.06.2010, passed in WPMP No.17952 of 2010 in WP No.14274 of 2010, and therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Act. He would also contend that the 1st respondent not only violated the interim order passed by this Court, but also misguided the Court by stating in his counter affidavit that proceeding issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C. by the 2nd respondent was in force as on 11.08.2010. According to the learned counsel, the proceeding issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 144 Cr.P.C. came to be lapsed by 18.07.2010. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner cannot take shelter under the deeming provision since the said deeming provision came to be deleted by the Government by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09.04.2010. He would also contend that the effect of the interim order is not to interfere with the fishing activities of the petitioner. As the petitioner has not converted the lands into fish tank, the question of his proceeding with the fishing activities does not arise. In a way his contention is G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09.04.2010, came to be issued before the petitioner converting the agricultural lands into fish tank. 8. The issue that calls for adjudication in this Contempt Case is, whether the respondents 1 to 3 have grossly violated the interim order, dated 22.06.2010, passed in WPMP No.17952 of 2010 in W.P.No.14274 of 2010. 9. Contempts of Court have traditionally been classified as being either criminal or civil but has never been rigidly maintained. The proceedings for civil contempt are sometimes described as “quasi- criminal” because of the penal consequences that can attend the breach of an order. In both civil and criminal contempt proceedings, it is the considerations of public policy that underlying the contempt jurisdiction viz., the protection of the administration of justice and the maintenance of the Court’s authority. Although “civil contempt” is concerned with breaches of Court orders or undertakings in civil litigation, for the benefit of the parties, the public interest equally plays an important role. 10. It is very well settled that the disobedience of an order made in a proceeding may not be sufficient to amount to a “civil contempt” within the meaning of Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’). The element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the accusation of contempt within the meaning of the Act. 11. It is of the greatest importance that the prestige and dignity of the Courts of law should be preserved at all cots. There cannot be anything of greater consequence than to keep the streams of justice clear and pure, so that litigants may have the utmost confidence that they would be treated in a considerate manner by Courts of law. 12. In Union of India v. Subvedar Devassy P.V.,[1], the Supreme Court held that if any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate Court and the rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings and right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Contempt Court cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. 13. Section 13 of the Act reads as hereunder: “1 3 . Contempts not punishable in certain cases. —Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, -- a) no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice; b) the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide.” The above referred section postulates no punishment for contemptuous conduct in certain cases and the language used therein seems to be with utmost care and caution when it records that unless the court is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that the act complained of substantially interferes with the due course of justice, question of any punishment would not arise. It is not enough that there should be some technical contempt of court but it must be shown that the act of contempt would otherwise substantially interfere with the due course of justice, which has been equated with “due administration of justice” – vide the decision of the Supreme Court in Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kumar Newalia (AIR 2000 sc 833). 14. In Mrityunjoy Das v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman’s case[2], the Apex Court observed that the contempt jurisdiction to be sparingly exercised with due care and caution and the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding. 15. The petitioner claims that he has deeming permission for conversion of agricultural land into fish tank by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 26.03.2008. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09.04.2010, deleting the deeming permission. In a way, the time limit of 60 days prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 26.03.2008, for processing the application has been deleted. Paras.1 to 3 of the G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09.04.2010, need to be noted and they are thus: “In the G.O. 1st read above, orders were issued constituting District Level Committee with District Collector as Chairman of the Committee for regularizing the existing fresh water aquaculture and for setting up of the new fresh water aquaculture units in the State alongwith the guidelines to be followed by the District Level Committee. In the G.O.2nd and G.O. 3rd read above, orders were issued affecting some amendments to the orders issued in the G.O.1st read above. In the G.O. 4th read above, the time limit for regularization of the existing fresh water aquaculture farms in the State was extended upto 30.04.2010. In the letter 5th read above, the Commissioner of Fisheries has requested the Government to remove the present (2) months time limit for disposal of the applications filed by the farmers seeking for permission to set up new farms as prior to the issue of licenses to farmers, number of issues have to be sorted out at mandal as well as at division level and many farmers have filed cases in Hon’ble High Court due to non issue of license to the farmer in the prescribed two months time limit. II. The Government have reviewed the matter keeping in view the policy of Government that the irrigated land should not be permitted to convert as freshwater aquaculture units and decided that committee be constituted at State Level to consider all such fresh / new cases and permit the district level committee to regularise the existing unregistered units and forward eligible cases with recommendations to the State Level Committee in respect of new applications. The applications which are not in accordance with the guidelines issued hereunder shall be rejected by the District Level Committee. It is also decided that the existing unregistered units should submit their applications on or before 31.05.2010 and the district committee shall not consider the applications for regularization on or after 01.06.2010. III. Therefore, the government in supersession of the orders issued in the G.Os., 1st to 4th read above, hereby issue the following instructions and guidelines to consider the cases for regularization of existing unregistered fresh water aquaculture units and also for starting new units.” Procedure for processing the application has also been indicated in the above referred G.O. The time limit of two months for processing the application came to be omitted by the above referred G.O. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 19.06.2010. By that date, the petitioner has not converted his agricultural land into fish tank. This fact is evident from para.9 of the writ affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “9. I submit that we started digging of the fish tanks in the above mentioned land. The subordinates of the respondents have physically and forcibly stopped the work. I submit that we met the respondents and explained them the ground position and further requested them not to interfere with the digging of the fish tanks. In spite of the same, the respondents are not allowing us to dig the fish tanks……” There is no material on record to show that the petitioner proceeded with the conversion of agricultural lands into fish tank under the deeming provision before issuance of G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09.04.2010. It is evident from the counter-affidavit of the respondents that the petitioner started digging fish tank in the first week of July, 2010 and thereupon the inhabitants of the nearby land belonging to poorer sections of the society resisted. The 1st respondent, being the head of the District, instructed the 2nd respondent to have field verification and thereafter, the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. to maintain law and order. At the cost of repetition, I may state that the interim order, dated 22.06.2010, passed in WPMP No.17952 of 2010 is directing the respondents not to interfere with the fishing activities of the petitioner. When the land is not yet converted into fish tank, question of fishing activity does not arise. Since the petitioner has not converted the agricultural lands into fish tank under deeming provision before the Government issuing G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 09.04.2010, he cannot be permitted to contend that he has right to proceed with the conversion of the agricultural land into fish tank under the said deeming provision. 16. In view of the above discussion, I find that this Contempt Case is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same hereby dismissed and consequently, contempt notice issued to the respondents 1 to 3 is discharged. No order as to costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:21st January, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.977 of 2010 Date:21st January, 2011 [1] 2006 (2) ALD 30 (SC) = AIR 2006 SC 909 [2] AIR 2001 S.C. 1293