*THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY +CONTEMPT CASE No.414 of 2011 % 17-6-2011 #Smt.Chada Ramulamma. … Petitioner Vs. $ Sri Saranga Padmakar, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District. … Respondent ! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Bollam Lingaiah Yadav. ^ Counsel for the respondent: GP for Civil Supplies. < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (2004) 8 SCC 683 2. 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 SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN CONTEMPT CASE No.414 of 2011 Between: Smt.Chada Ramulamma. … Petitioner And Sri Saranga Padmakar, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Bollam Lingaiah Yadav. Counsel for the respondent: GP for Civil Suplies. This Court made the following: JUDGMENT:- This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order, dated 24-1-2011, in Writ Petition No.833 of 2011 by the respondent. The petitioner in this Contempt Case filed the above mentioned Writ Petition for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 4-1-2011 of the respondent, by which he has kept the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization under suspension. This Court, following the judgment, dated 18-1-2011, in Writ Petition No.28833 of 2010 (Palle Peeraiah Vs. The District Collector, Warangal and others) allowed the Writ Petition by quashing the suspension order. It was held by the said order that the respondent, having issued the show- cause notice calling for explanation from the petitioner on certain allegations, passed order suspending the petitioner’s authorization without indicating in the said order whether the said suspension is substantive in nature or pending further enquiry, if any. The respondent was, however, given liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the findings rendered in the said order. In the Contempt Case, which was filed on 22-3- 2011, the petitioner averred that after receiving the order in the said Writ Petition, she has submitted a copy thereof to the respondent on 3-2-2011 and that the respondent received and acknowledged the same. It is further averred that the petitioner approached the respondent for restoration of her authorization. The petitioner alleged that the respondent claimed that he was directed by the Minister hailing from their district to cancel her authorization and allot the shop to the person of the Minister’s choice; and that on 18-3-2011 the respondent has issued a notice for cancellation of her authorization and forfeiture of the trade deposit of Rs.3,000/- and security deposit of Rs.100/-. As the respondent failed to restore her authorization before a fresh order was passed, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case. On 8-4-2011 the case was adjourned at the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for filing counter-affidavit. Accordingly, the counter- affidavit, sworn to on 11-4-2011 and served on the counsel for the petitioner on 13-4-2011 was filed by the respondent. After perusing the counter-affidavit, this court prima facie found that non-restoration of the petitioner’s authorization despite quashing of the suspension order constitutes contempt and, accordingly, admitted the Contempt Case. The contemnor has appeared in pursuance of Form No.1 notice. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, representing the contemnor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the order of this court passed in Writ Petition No.833 of 2011 was brought to the knowledge of the respondent as far back as 3-2-2011, he has not restored the petitioner’s authorization deliberately and willfully by claiming that the District Minister wants replacement of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, while conceding that quashing of the suspension order entitle the petitioner for restoration of her authorization before a fresh order was passed, has, however, stated that the action of the respondent in not restoring the authorization of the petitioner is not willful and deliberate, but is on account of a bonafide mistake. The learned Government Pleader further stated that the respondent has passed the final order in the first week of April, 2011 against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner, which is pending before the appellate authority. From the facts noted above, the admitted position that emerges is that with the quashing of the order of suspension, the petitioner was entitled to restoration of her authorization till a fresh order was passed in accordance with law as per the liberty given by this court. In the counter-affidavit the respondent has admitted that order dated 24-1-2011 passed in the Writ Petition was received by the inward section of his office on 3-2-2011. The respondent has, however, put forth a very strange defence that no petition was found enclosed to the copy of the order of this court; that it was only a photo copy and not a certified copy; that the Tahsildar, Kangal, has sent a certified copy of order through his letter dated 8-3-2011 stating that the petitioner has given the same to him for transmission to the respondent; and that as per the directions of this court the respondent has already initiated fresh action in accordance with law and thereby he has complied with the order of this court. From the tenor of the above pleadings of the respondent it appears that he is trying to take shelter from the fact that the petitioner handed over only a photo copy of the order of this court and not a certified copy and that on receipt of a certified copy, more than one month after his receiving photo copy, he has initiated action, which constituted sufficient compliance of the order of this court. The respondent failed to state whether he had doubted the genuineness of the photo copy of the order of this court and, therefore, he has not acted upon the said copy. The respondent also failed to explain as to why he has not restored the petitioner's authorization, pending passing of a fresh order. It is also not the pleaded case of the respondent that he failed to properly comprehend the scope of the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.833 of 2011 for not restoring the petitioner’s authorization. If the respondent felt that he cannot act on a photo copy of the order or this court, he should have immediately called upon the petitioner to produce a certified copy. Being the respondent in the Writ Petition, which was disposed of in the presence of and after hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing him, it is his bounden duty to contact his lawyer no sooner than he received the photo copy of the order and verify its authenticity. This court cannot appreciate the implied stand of the respondent that he is not under an obligation to act on the photo copy of the order of this Court until he receives a certified copy in due course. Such a stand, if accepted, destroys the efficacy of the judicial orders and brings down the dignity and majesty of the court in public esteem. The respondent is a public servant holding a responsible position. He is not expected to act in a casual, callous and irresponsible manner by ignoring the order of this court on the purported ground that he has only received the photo copy. The respondent has compounded his action by not acting at least after he received the certified copy. If he has not understood the true purport of the order of this court, he should have contacted the Government Pleader and obtained his legal advice in the matter of restoration of the petitioner's authorization. It is not his case that he has ever tried to approach the Government Pleader’s office for this purpose. Further more, even though the Contempt Case was received by the Government Pleader’s office on 22-3-2011, the respondent failed to take remedial steps at least at that belated stage. On the contrary, he maintained in the counter-affidavit that he has acted promptly as per the direction of this court after receiving certified copy of the order from the office of the Tahsildasr and that, therefore, there is no violation of the order of this court. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader stated that after issuing notice on 18-3-2011 the respondent has passed a final order in the 1st week of April, 2011. However, in the counter-affidavit sworn to on 11-4-2011 this fact was not mentioned. Be that as it may, the respondent, who acted in utter defiance of the order of this Court which was in his knowledge at least from 3-2-2011, failed to restore the petitioner's authorization till a final order was purported to have been passed in the 1st week of April, 2011. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that, as noted above, the petitioner specifically alleged in her affidavit (para 5) that when she approached the respondent with a request to restore the authorization, the latter stated that he was directed by the Minister hailing from the district to cancel the petitioner’s authorization to facilitate appointment of the person of the Minister’s choice. The respondent failed to deny this specific allegation even though in his counter-affidavit he adverted to para 5 of the affidavit filed in the contempt case. This conduct of the respondent gives rise to a reasonable presumption that non-restoration of the petitioner’s authorization is not a bonafide mistake as sought to be projected by the learned Government Pleader. In my opinion, the act of the respondent in not restoring the petitioner’s authorization constitutes deliberate and willful violation of the order of this Court. The learned Government Pleader finally submitted that the respondent may be let off by administering a warning for the lapse committed by him. I have given my thoughtful consideration to this request of the learned Government Pleader. In the counter- affidavit the respondent has not even offered an apology. He has stuck to his stand by claiming that he has acted promptly as per the direction of this Court after receiving the certified copy and that there is no violation of the order of this Court. When this was pointed by this Court at the hearing, the respondent, who was present in the Court, has not even requested the learned Government Pleader to seek an adjournment for filing an additional affidavit. The conduct of the respondent does not convince this court that the request made by him through the learned Government Pleader is genuine and bonafide. He has failed to show any sort of remorse for the sacrilege he has committed. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that upholding the dignity and majesty of the Courts is very much essential for maintaining rule of law and preserving the faith of the people in the judicial system. The stream of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous elements to meet their personal ends. Judiciary being the last resort for a vexed citizen, its dignity and decorum should always and at all times be protected. I do not find any mitigating circumstances in favour of the respondent to let him off the serious act of contempt. Indeed, of late, the number of Contempt Cases is on the rise and more often the officers representing the executive apparatus, who are accused of violating the orders of the courts, offer apologies as a secondary defence after their primary defence fails to pass muster with the Court. Taking judicial notice of this attitude, the Supreme Court in E.T.Sunup Vs. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association[1] 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[2] 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 defence 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 (for short “the Act”). After careful examination of the case in its entirety, I am of the opinion that the respondent has indulged in deliberate violation of the order of this court. Accordingly, the respondent is held guilty of contempt. Considering the nature of the act of the respondent, he is sentenced under Section 12(3) of the Act and he shall be detained in civil prison for a period of fifteen days besides paying a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). The respondent shall be entitled to subsistence allowance at Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) per day as required under Rule 32(1) of the Contempt of Courts Rules, 1980 framed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The State Government shall bear the cost of subsistence allowance. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to take necessary steps for implementation of this order. The Contempt Case is accordingly disposed of. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17-6-2011 MNR LR copies to be marked. [1]) (2004) 8 SCC 683 [2] 2002 (6) ALT 326