THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Contempt Case No.1203 of 2011 ORDER : 1. The contempt case is filed for violation of the interim orders of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.25663 of 2011 in W.P.No.21082 of 2011, dated 27-07- 2011, whereby this Court directed the respondent herein viz., the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to administer oath of office and secrecy to petitioners as trustees to Sri Rachanna Swamy Temple, Badampet Village, Kohir Mandal, Medak District in pursuance of the proceedings of the Commissioner, Endowments issued in Memo Rc.No.C3/3523/2011, dated 30-06-2011. Admittedly, the respondent has not administered oath of office as per the said directions. 2. Here is a person who has defied not only law but the orders of this Court. By not administering the oath, he has not only frustrated the mandatory law, but also frustrated the orders of this Court, apparently due to extraneous reasons as the facts will reveal later, in this order. The law which the respondent has defied is : (1) Section 19 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 Section 19 Disqualifications for Trusteeship xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) Before a trustee enters upon his office the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner or any other person authorized by him in this behalf shall administer to him the oath of office and secrecy as may be prescribed. The following is the order which the respondent has defied. “Order dated 27-07-2011 in W.P.M.P.No.25663 of 2011 in W.P.No.21082 of 2011 : Interim Direction – Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Medak, to administer oath of office and secrecy to the petitioner as trustees to Sri Rachanna Swamy Temple, Badampet Village, Kohir Mandal, Medak District in pursuance of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments issued in Memo Rc.No.C3/3523/2011, dated 30-06- 2011 pending W.P. No.21082 of 2011 on the file of this Court.” 3. The aforesaid interim order was granted taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioners were appointed as trustees to the Board by orders of the Commissioner dated 30-06-2011 and in terms of Sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of the Act, which is extracted below, unless petitioners take oath of office within 30 days from the date of order, they will seize to hold office. “Section 19 (3) :-- Any such trustee who fails to take, within thirty days from the date on which he was appointed, the oath of office and secrecy laid down in sub-section (2) shall cease to hold office.” This being the mandatory provision under which the petitioners will suffer disqualification, the respondent is duty bound as provided under Sub- Section (2) of Section 19 to administer oath. The petitioners while seeking interim order specifically pleaded that even though the Assistant Commissioner initially issued a letter dated 08-07-2011 directing the Inspector, Endowments Department to administer the oath on 11-07-2011, the respondent did not administer the oath. They have specifically pleaded that they were present on the appointed date but neither the respondent nor the Inspector was present on the appointed date, therefore they submitted a representation dated 23-07-2011 pointing out the said lapse and requested the respondent to administer the oath at least on 25-07-2011. 4. The petitioners have specifically averred these facts in the affidavit filed by them in support of the Contempt case. The following are the relevant paragraphs : “6. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Medak in pursuance of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments dated 30-06-2011 issued letter in Rc.No.B/27/2011, dated 08-07-2011 wherein he directed the Inspector, Endowments Department to administer the oath of office on 11-07-2011 as trustees to Sri Rachanna Swamy Temple, Badampeta Village, Kohir Mandal, Medak District under the said letter. Though the petitioners have presented themselves on 11-07-2011 for the reasons best known neither the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments nor the Inspector who had been authorized to administer the oath of office and secrecy to the petitioners as trustees failed to be present at the temple for fulfilling the statutory obligation of administering the oath of office and secrecy. 7. Having failed to pursue the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to administer the oath of office and secrecy to the subject temple as trustees the petitioners herein had gave a representation to the 1st respondent i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Medak District on 23-07-2011 for administering the oath of office and secrecy in pursuance of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments, dated 30-06-2011 appointing the petitioners as non-hereditary trustees under Section 15 of the Endowments Act. By virtue of non-administering the oath of office and secrecy the petitioners are likely to be disqualified as trustees under Section 19 (3) of the Endowments Act, 30 of 1987 wherein if any trustee fails to take oath of office and secrecy within 30 days from the date on which he was appointed, he shall cease to hold office as a trustee under sub-section 2 of Section 19 of the Act. By virtue of the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent the petitioners are likely to fall under the clause of disqualification as indicated under Section 19 (3) of the Endowments Act and if this is allowed to happen the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury.” 5. The respondent has not at all traversed the aforesaid statement in his counter-affidavit. 6. On the other hand, the following is the stand taken by him : “It is pertinent to state herein that after the government has received two representations dated 11-07-2011 and 21-07-2011 the same was forwarded to the Commissioner of Endowments vide D.O. Letter dated 29-7-2011 for taking necessary action. The Commissioner vide in memo dated 24-08-2011 requested me to conduct detailed enquiry into the matter and submit a report on the various allegations which were made in the above representations. In pursuance of the said direction of the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, I addressed a letter on 29-8-2011 to the first petitioner herein who was the Ex-Chairman of the subject temple to attend the enquiry on 02-09-2011 at 1.00 PM in the premises of the temple. The 1st petitioner in response to the said letter was present on 02-09-2011 and submitted his explanation. I further submit that after verifying the records and the statements made by the first petitioner herein, vide letter dated 06-09-2011, I once again requested the first petitioner and also the other petitioners to attend the enquiry on 17-09-2011 to answer the allegations as well as the queries, but they failed to attend the said enquiry and therefore the final report could not be submitted to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. In fact, in the preliminary enquiry it has come to my knowledge that the first petitioner had spent amount even after expiry of his term, without proper permission and authority which is a serious lapse and illegal action on the part of the first petitioner, the Ex.Chairman of the temple. In respect of other allegations the petitions are yet to submit their explanations.” 7. He has taken a further stand that he has already approached this Court by filing vacate petition and that while the stay petition is pending, petitioners cannot insist upon the implementation of the interim order. He therefore takes a stand that pending the vacate petition, he is under no obligation to implement the orders. 8. The said stand is only a pretence if his affidavit filed in the W.P., is noticed wherein he has taken a stand that he did not administer oath since the Government is seized of the matter by orally instructing him not to administer oath. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the counter- affidavit : “…………..Further there has been huge misappropriation of funds which was committed by him while holding the office as Chairman of the earlier trust board. In view of the same since the allegations are also serious, the Government had orally instructed me to defer the oath of secrecy till a final order is passed by the Government in the interest of temple and devotees and accordingly the oath of the office has been deferred by me in the interest of temple and the devotees and not otherwise as alleged by the petitioners. I submit that there is no wilful attitude or mala fide intention in not administering the oath of secrecy as alleged by the petitioners. In fact as stated above the oath of secrecy was deferred due to the serious allegations made against the petitioners and since the Government is already seized of the matter and was enquiring into the allegations against the petitioners. Further, it is not desirable to administer the oath of secrecy to the person when they are being accused of his mismanagement and misappropriation in respect of the very same temple.” 9. The aforesaid counter-affidavits of the respondent clearly indicate that the respondent deliberately acted for extraneous reasons on an extra- statutory oral order to frustrate the order of this Court and the statutory provisions as well. The respondent states that an organization viz., Rashtra Dalit Sena submitted a representation to Dr. (M/s) J. Geeta Reddy, Minister for Major Industries, Sugar, Commerce and Export Promotion, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 11-07-2011 and 21-07-2011. It is to be noticed that the oath was originally scheduled to be administered on the same date viz., 11- 07-2011. It may not be a matter of coincidence if the developments are examined. On 21-07-2011 the said Minister who is no way concerned with the Endowments Department received complaint dated 21-07-2011 preceded by an earlier representation dated 11-07-2011 from some persons and the Minister readily reacted on the same day by addressing a letter to the Minister for I.T. & Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh to keep the orders of appointment in abeyance and to cause an enquiry into antecedents of the petitioners. Admittedly the Government has not passed any orders thereon. However the respondent with all gusto admits that he was orally instructed to keep the proceedings in abeyance till a final order is passed by the Government; therefore he has deferred to administer the oath. 10. Disobedience of the orders of this Court is writ large as can be seen from the above facts. On a consideration, I feel the respondent has treated the orders of this court as inferior to the oral orders of the Government, and it must be held that his action is not casual or intentional but deliberate. 11. Majesty of law as it is, cannot be seen to suffer at the hands of the respondent. Administration of justice is interfered with by the action of the respondent. It is unfortunate that the Minister holding a cabinet rank is said to be the cause which has prevented the administration of justice. Officers who are public servants are bound by Rule of Law but not by the dictates of the Ministers or others however high they may be. Officers should realize what befall on them if they ignore Rule of Law to please somebody at the helm of affairs. Oral instructions, oral orders are unknown to law. Those who follow such oral law ignoring Rule of law are bound to reap the consequences. Axe therefore should fall on them. 12. I have therefore no hesitation to hold that the respondent who is guilty of contempt is liable to be punished. Section 12 (1) of the Act prescribes that this Court may punish the contemnor with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. Though discretion is available to this Court to impose fine in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the respondent by imposing fine. In the aforesaid facts I am convinced by violating the orders of this Court the respondent has substantially interfered with due course of justice. Even though the respondent seeks apology, this Court is not willing to accept the same as the same is without any bona fides and the apology though termed as unconditional, it in fact is not so. It is made conditional only when this Court reached a conclusion as to the violation of the orders of this Court. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find the respondent guilty of contempt and accordingly sentence him to undergo detention in civil prison for a period of one month. The respondent shall be entitled to subsistence allowance @ Rs.500/- per day during the period of sentence which shall be borne by the State. 14. Contempt Case is accordingly ordered. 15. The respondent is present through out the hearing of this case. The learned Government Pleader appearing for him submits that the sentence be suspended to enable the respondent to file an appeal. In view of the request, the sentence shall remain suspended for three weeks. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 16th November, 2011. skmr