*THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY +CONTEMPT CASE No.1520 of 2010 %25-2-2011 #M/s.Urmila Mansion Private Limited, reptd., by its Manager-Sri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal. … Petitioner Vs. $ The Inspector General of Stamps and Registration, NBK Enclave, Golconda X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.Sai Kumar. ^ Counsel for the respondents: Government Pleader for Revenue. < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (1998) 4 SCC 409=1998(3) ALT 10 (DN SC) 2. (2002) 4 SCC 21= 2002 (4) ALT 5.2. (DN SC) 3. (1973) 1 SCC 446 4. (2004) 8 SCC 683 5. 2002 (6) ALT 326 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN CONTEMPT CASE No.1520 of 2010 Between: M/s.Urmila Mansion Private Limited, reptd., by its Manager-Sri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal. … Petitioner And The Inspector General of Stamps and Registration, NBK Enclave, Golconda X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.Sai Kumar. Counsel for the respondents: GP for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER:- Alleging willful disobedience of order, dated 5-10- 2010, in WPMP No.30432 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.23783 of 2010 by respondent No.4 in the Contempt Case - i.e., Sri K.Jayakar, the Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District - the petitioner in the Writ Petition and the WPMP filed this Contempt Case. The facts in brief leading to filing of this Contempt Case are as follows: The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.22816 of 2010 with the grievance that respondent No.4 was not receiving the documents presented by it for registration. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court with the direction to respondent No.4 to take appropriate decision on the documents presented by the petitioner under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No.23783 of 2010 on the plea that though the period stipulated by this Court for passing order by respondent No.4 has expired, the latter failed to pass any order. The petitioner has, therefore, sought for a Mandamus to act in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and register the sale deeds presented by the petitioner for the land admeasuring Ac.10.22 guntas in Survey Nos.602/A and 602/E of Gungal village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In WPMP No.30432 of 2010 this Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, passed order dated 5-10-2010. As this order is alleged to be violated by respondent No.4, it is apt to reproduce the same hereunder: “ This is an application to direct respondent No.4 to register the plots of the petitioner company to its customers in respect of land admeasuring Ac.10.22 guntas comprised in Sy.Nos.602/A and 602/E of Gungal village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Earlier this Court disposed of W.P.No.22816 of 2010 filed by the petitioner with the direction to respondent No.4 to take appropriate decision under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the said order of this Court was served by the petitioner on respondent No.4 on 20-9-2010. The period of two weeks stipulated by this Court has accordingly expired. However, at the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has not reported that any order has been passed, as directed by this Court. In the light of these facts, respondent No.4 is directed to receive the documents presented by the petitioner and register the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It is made clear that mere act of registration will not confer a better title on the purchasers than that vested in the petitioner”. As noted above, alleging willful violation of the above order, the present Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case, it is, inter alia, stated that on 7-10-2010 the petitioner went to the office of respondent No.4 with the documents for registration and a copy of the interim order referred to above; that, at that time, respondent No.4 was not in his office and a person, who was incharge of the office of respondent No.4, has received the papers along with order copy of this Court; that the said person, upon talking to respondent No.4 over phone, informed the petitioner that the former was busy and the petitioner may approach respondent No.4 on the following day; that on 8-10-2010 when the petitioner approached respondent No.4 in his office, the latter allegedly stated that whoever may have passed the order, he will not register the documents unless he is advised by his superiors; and that he has thrown away the copy of the order of this Court on the petitioner’s face and scolded the incharge of the office, who received the said order copy, for giving acknowledgment of receipt of the order without his instructions. It is further alleged that on the petitioner’s insistence that he will not leave the office unless action is taken either way, respondent No.4 assigned the number to the document as Pending Document No.85 by striking out Registration No.8606 on 8-10-2010; and that on the same day he has rejected another document, which was presented on 21-9-2010. The petitioner alleged that these acts of respondent No.4 are highly deplorable and constitute willful violation of the order of this Court. After the Contempt Case was admitted on 27-10- 2010, respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner has served a copy of the interim order of this Court on 7-10-2010 and presented the document on 8-10-2010; that he has processed the same by assigning P.No.85/2010; and that in view of the civil Court’s order of injunction subsisting in the matter, he has passed order exercising his power under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 refusing registration of the document on 19-10- 2010. Respondent No.4 has referred to Clause (b) of Standing Order No.219 to justify the said action. He has also stated that as the said Standing Order prohibits registration in cases where the civil Court grants order restraining persons from alienating the properties, he has earlier refused another pending document No.73 of 2010; and that, in order to maintain consistency, he has refused registration of the present document on 19-10- 2010, vide his Refusal Order No.2 of 2010. Respondent No.4 denied the allegation that he has made adverse comment against this Court’s order and thrown the same on the petitioner’s face on 8-10-2010. Respondent No.4 was critical of the petitioner’s conduct in not disclosing subsistence of the order of injunction before this Court. He has reiterated that as he has already refused one document in respect of the same property on 4-10-2010, he has passed a similar order by refusing registration of another document on 19-10- 2010. He has tendered his purported unconditional apology in the event this Court feels that he has violated the interim order of this Court. This Court, having prima facie felt that he has indulged in the act of serious contempt, has directed respondent No.4 to remain present on every day of hearing, by order dated 16-11-2010. On 22- 11-2010 the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue made a statement, at the hearing, that respondent No.4 has released the document to the petitioner after registration and that he intends to file an additional counter affidavit. Accordingly, additional counter affidavit was filed on 6-12-2010. While reiterating that as his predecessor has refused registration of a document on an earlier occasion, he has refused to register the latter document presented by the petitioner after passing of the interim order by this Court, respondent No.4, however, stated that he should not have refused the document and ought to have registered the same; and that on the petitioner submitting two documents in respect of the very same property on 11-11-2010 and 1-12-2010 they were registered and thereby the order of this Court has been complied with. He has further stated that he has realized his mistake and tenders his unconditional apology for violation of the order of this Court. He further stated that due to improper understanding of the Court orders and without legal advice, he has refused the documents, for which he expresses his regrets and apologizes for the same by assuring that he will be more careful in future and will not repeat such mistakes. It is trite and it needs no emphasis that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law. It is an unusual type of jurisdiction combining “the jury, the judge and the hangman”. (See: Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India[1]). Referring to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Apex Court, in Anil Ratan Sarkar Vs. Hirak Gosh[2], held that a powerful weapon in the hand of the Courts is introduced for the purpose of securing a feeling of confidence in the people in general and to ensure due and proper administration of Justice in the country. In Baradak Anta Mishra, Ex. Commissioner of Endowments Vs. Bhimsen Dixit[3], the Supreme Court held that contempt of Court signifies a willful disregard or disobedience of the Court by acting in opposition to the authority of Justice and dignity thereof, and that it also signifies that such conduct as tending to bring the authority and administration of law into disrepute. With this firmly settled position of law in mind, it requires to be examined whether the order of this Court is violated by respondent No.4 and, if so, whether such violation is willful or intentional. The order of this Court, reproduced hereinabove, contains a peremptory direction to respondent No.4 to “receive the documents presented by the petitioner and register the same in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899”. (Emphasis supplied). The mandatory nature of the order does not leave any scope whatsoever for respondent No.4 to avoid receiving and registration of the documents to be presented by the petitioner, much less any liberty to him to pass an order of refusal of registration. Indeed, it is not the pleaded case of respondent No.4 that the interim order of this Court is capable of more than one interpretation. The unequivocal direction contained in the interim order notwithstanding, respondent No.4 has not only displayed an utter defiance to the said order by passing an order of rejection, but also sought to justify the same in his counter-affidavit sworn to on 16-11- 2010 by stating that as there was an interim order of injunction passed by a vacation Civil Judge on 24-5- 2005 restraining the parties from alienating the property in question and having regard to his rejection of an earlier document on 4-10-2010, he has refused registration of these documents as well to maintain consistency. From the sequence of events of this case, it is clear that refusal of registration of earlier document was made on 4-10-2010, which was a day prior to the passing of the interim order by this Court. Therefore, by no means, the said refusal could be made a basis for refusing another document, which was presented subsequent to and in pursuance of the interim order of this Court. What is more confounding is respondent No.4 placing reliance on a purported civil Court’s order of injunction of more than 5 years vintage and a Standing Order, to act in defiance of this Court’s order. Alas! respondent No.4 places the proceedings of a subordinate Civil Court on a higher pedestal than the order of this Court and, to my mind, there cannot be a worse derogation of this Court’s authority and majesty than this. It is incomprehensible that respondent No.4, who holds the position of the Sub-Registrar with considerable experience under his belt would have found the above noted reasons as constraints on due compliance of this Court’s order. It is not possible to believe that respondent No.4 was so naïve as not to know that the order of a Constitutional Court reigns over the order passed by a Civil Court, which is subordinate to it. Assuming that respondent No.4 has not posted himself even with this rudimentary knowledge, if he had any bona fides he should have immediately consulted the office of the Government Pleader, in whose presence the interim order was passed. Respondent No.4 has not come out with any explanation as to why he failed to consult his lawyer before violating this Court’s order with impunity. This Court has watched the demeanor of respondent No.4 during his appearance in the Court. He seemed to be overconfident during his first two appearances on 16-11-2010 and 18-11-2010 and has gradually realized the serious fall out of his blatant act. That had probably made him to mellow himself. As a first step, during the pendency of this case, he has received the documents and registered the same, which fact was reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on 22-11-2010. Respondent No.4 would have obviously thought that this subsequent curative step will soften this Court. As that was not to be, he has filed an additional counter- affidavit sworn to on 3-12-2010, wherein he has admitted the so called mistake and conceded that he should not have refused to receive the documents and ought to have registered the same. Respondent No.4 sought to take shelter under “improper understanding of the Court orders”. From the discussion undertaken above, there can be no two opinions of the fact that respondent No.4 has not only violated the order of this Court but while doing so he has acted in a brazen manner, which has thoroughly undermined the majesty of this Court. Even though respondent No.4 sought to purge the contempt by registering the documents and tendering unconditional apology, he is unable to convince this Court on his bona fides and this Court perceives these subsequent acts by him only to escape from the rigors of the contempt. Dealing with the attitude that some of the Government Officers in circumventing the orders of the Constitutional Courts and taking recourse to lending justification later, the Supreme Court in E.T.Sunup Vs. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association[4] made the following succinct observations: “It has become a tendency with the Government Officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of court and try to take recourse to one justification or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the court. This tendency of undermining the Court's order cannot be countenanced. This Court time and again has emphasized that in a democracy the role of the court cannot be subservient to administrative fiat. The executive and legislature have to work within the Constitutional framework and the judiciary has been given a role of watchdog to keep the legislature and executive within check”. While referring to the plea of showing mercy regarding penalty, the Supreme Court observed: “But if the Court's orders are flouted like this, then people will loose faith in the courts. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with such type of violation of Court's order with strong hands and to convey to the authorities that the courts are not going to take things lightly”. In Smt. A.Santhi Kumari, I.A.S. Vs. K.Ravi[5] a Division Bench of this Court held that in appropriate cases if the Court comes to the conclusion that the order passed by the authorities in purported compliance of the directions of the Court is not a bona fide one, but a deliberate attempt to overreach the Court’s order and willfulness in the matter of disregard of an order of the Court is apparent on the face of it and there is no possibility to accept the same as defense of action for deliberate and willful disregard of an order of the Court, it shall always be open for the Court to proceed further under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and also under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Having given my earnest consideration, I am of the opinion that respondent No.4 has indulged in flagrant violation of the order of this Court, which deserves to be viewed very seriously. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is convicted under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful and deliberate violation of order, dated 5-10-2010, in WPMP No.30432 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.23783 of 2010. Finally, the question regarding sentence remains to be considered. Ordinarily, the nature of disobedience displayed by respondent No.4 would have warranted the penalty of imprisonment. However, as he has taken corrective steps albeit under the pressure of contempt by complying with the order of this Court, pending the Contempt Case, I feel that a lesser sentence would be appropriate. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are directed to take steps to make an entry of conviction and sentence of respondent No.4 in his Service Register. Registry shall communicate this order to respondents 1 and 3 for taking appropriate action. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:25-2-2011 MNR L.R. Copies to be marked. [1]) (1998) 4 SCC 409=1998(3) ALT 10 (DN SC) [2]) (2002) 4 SCC 21= 2002 (4) ALT 5.2. (DN SC) [3]) (1973) 1 SCC 446 [4]) (2004) 8 SCC 683 [5] 2002 (6) ALT 326