1 APHC010248332023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3011/2023 Between: 1. CHINTALA JAYAMMA, W/O SANJAY KUMAR DAUGHTER IN LAW OF CHINTALA GURU MURTHY, 2. KOTTI SANYASAMMA, D/O CHINTALA GURU MURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. RAVVA SEETHAMMA, D/O CHINTALA GURU MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O S.C.COLONY, 4. ARRA MAHESWARA RAO, S/O ACHANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 5. T ESTHERRANI, W/O DEVANANDAM, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 6. T VIJAY VINOD KUMAR, S/O DEVANANDAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 7. T ASHOK KUMAR, S/O DEVANANDAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 8. BAKI APPAYYAMMA, W/O-NARASINGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, (ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE REP., BY THEIR AUTHORIZED PERSON AND DIRECTOR OF M/S SIMHACHAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, PALLISEETY UDAYA BHASKARA RAO S/O PEDDA BASAVA PUNNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O D.N0.27-1-1642, BALAJI NAGAR, NELLORE TOWN, PATTI SREE RAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. A MALLIKHARJUNA IAS, District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam ...CONTEMNOR 2 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to call for the Respondent/Contemnor and punish him under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of courts Act, for intentionally, Wantonly, and Deliberately not complying the orders passed by this Honourable Court dated 20-12-2022 in W.P. 9519/2018 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with my personal appearance in the above contempt case and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with my personal appearance on 29.08.2024 in CC.No.3011/2023 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with the appearance of respondent on 24.07.2025 in view of the training period from 21.07.2025 to 16.08.2025 to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. S PRANATHI The Court made the following order: This Contempt case is filed under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the wilful disobedience of the orders dated 20.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.9519 of 2018. 3 2. Heard Sri Subbarao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt S.Pranathi, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that, upon the representation made by the petitioners to the respondent to comply the orders of this court passed in W.P.No.9519 of 2018, the respondent had issued proceedings dated 31.03.2023 without considering the tahsildar’s proceedings dated 30.11.2016, which is very crucial, thereby wilfully and intentionally flouted the part-b of the orders, disobedience of which is complained of in this contempt case. He further submitted that when this court has specifically directed the District collector to consider the proceedings of tahsildar dated 30.11.2016, the same was not considered which amounts to wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent. Hence, the contempt case. He further submitted that, pursuant to filing of this contempt case, the respondent, having become functus officio, had issued another proceedings dated 17.05.2023 rejecting the petitioners case, that too without issuing notices and hearing the petitioners. Moreover, the tahsildar’s proceedings dated 30.11.2016 were also not referred in the said proceedings, which clearly shows that the proceedings dated 17.05.2023 are issued with an intention to overcome the contempt proceedings. He further submitted that orders passed by the respondent can be termed as contemptuous orders and the same are liable to be set aside in the contempt proceedings. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a three-judge 4 bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others v. Dr. Vijay Mallya1 and prayed to punish him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. On the other hand, Smt S.Pranathi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court, while passing order dated 31.03.2023 tahsildar’s proceedings were not taken into consideration and it is a bonafide mistake occurred due to oversight, however, the respondent had issued proceedings dated 17.05.2023 by duly considering the proceedings of the tahsildar dated 30.11.2016 as per the directions of this court. She further submitted that the powers of this Court are very limited wherein it can only look into the aspect whether any order has been passed or not as directed. Admittedly order has been passed in this case. Further this court cannot go into the aspect whether the respondent has become functus officio or not in the contempt proceedings. She further submitted that, if at all the respondent has an intention to disobey the orders of this Court either wilfully or intentionally, he would not even have passed orders at all but he has passed orders. Further he has rectified the mistake which was due to oversight and accordingly issued another proceedings by duly following the directions of this Court by considering the tahsildar’s proceedings dated 30.11.2016. She further submitted that the order passed due to oversight does not amount to wilful disobedience as alleged by the petitioners particularly when it is rectified 1 2022 SCC Online SC 826 5 through the proceedings dated 17.05.2023. Further, the respondent has great respect on the Court & Court orders and he has tendered unconditional apology towards the mistake committed by him. As such, there is no contempt as alleged by the petitioners and accordingly prayed to close the contempt case. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. This Court vide order dated 20.12.2022 disposed of W.P.No.9519 of 2018 with the following directions: “a. The impugned proceedings D.Dis.No.3462/2014/E1 dated 06.06.2016 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent –District collector and b. The District collector is directed to adjudicate the issue afresh by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and also by taking into consideration the proceedings of the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar dated 30.11.2016 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioners within eight(08) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.‖ 7. A perusal of the record would clearly indicate that the respondent/contemnor has issued two proceedings independently i.e., one without considering the tahsildar’s proceedings dated 30.11.2016, thereby flouted the part-b of above said direction and another by just referring the same. As per the arguments advanced by the petitioners, after issuing proceedings, the issuing authority would become functus officio and cannot 6 issue another proceeding on the same aspect and in the instant case, only to overcome the contempt proceedings, the respondent had issued proceedings dated 17.05.2023 which is wholly unsustainable and void. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent submits that order has been passed without taking into consideration tahsildar’s proceedings, due to oversight and was neither wilful nor intentional and tendered unconditional apology. Learned counsel for the respondent further urged that having noticed the said mistake, the authority had issued another proceedings by duly considering the tahsildar’s proceedings as per the directions of this Court, moreover, this Court cannot go into the aspect of functus officio in the contempt proceedings. 8. In Ram Kishan Vs Tarun Bajaj 2, it was held that, in order to punish a contemnor it has to be established that disobedience of the order is wilful. The word ‘wilful’ introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one’s state of mind. ‘Wilful’ means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. 9. In the instant case, the respondent did not pass orders as directed by this Court. Even in the second order, the respondent did not consider tahsildar’s order except stating that the tahsildar’s proceedings dated 30.11.2016 are erred as many flaws are noticed. In fact, the respondent 2 (2014) 16 SCC 204 7 called for a fresh report from tahsildar before passing the second order. He neither issued any fresh notice nor provided opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 10. Admittedly, the respondent is not the present Collector working in the said jurisdiction. So he cannot take any recourse of the said proceedings in question. In the said circumstances, this Court can only give liberty to the petitioner to question the same before the appropriate forum. This court is cautious about the contempt jurisdiction wherein it can go only to the aspect whether the contemnor has wilfully or deliberately violated the orders of this Court or not. 11. No doubt, firstly the respondent has passed orders by flouting part-b of the orders of this court i.e., to consider the tahsildar’s proceedings. The explanation submitted was that the error happened due to oversight and due to work pressure, however he had rendered unconditional apology. The respondent, being an I.A.S. officer and working as a District Collector, cannot simply say that the mistake happened due to oversight. However, the said fact of oversight was not at all pleaded in the counter, which is further silent about the reasons which made him pass the second order. Moreover, having categorically stated in the counter that he has not violated the orders of this Court, the respondent had tendered unconditional apology. The proposition is well settled and self-evident that there cannot be both justification and an apology. The two things are incompatible. Again an apology is not a weapon 8 of defence to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. 12. Whether the apology tendered by the contemnors deserves to be accepted or is it a legal trick to wriggle out of responsibility? Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deals with this aspect which reads as under: ―12. Punishment for contempt of court.— (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanation.—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit. (4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person: 9 Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer. Explanation.— For the purposes of sub-sections (4) & (5),— (a) ―company‖ means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) ―director‖, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.‖ 13. Section 12 of the Act 1971 provides for the punishment of contempt. Proviso to this section states that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on the apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanation to this says that the apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional, if the accused makes it bonafide. In the instant case, the respondent pleaded before this Court that his apology may be accepted and he may be discharged from the proceedings. This Court is very cautious that the litigants, proceeded for contempt of court have realised that they have a very potent weapon in their hands in the form of apology. However, from the facts of this case, it can be presumed that the respondent had wilfully flouted the orders of this Court. Therefore, this Court opines that the 10 action of the respondents cannot be treated as bonafide and his unconditional apology cannot be accepted. 14. In Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari Vs Hiralal Somabhai Contractor3, the Apex Court has held that apology is not just a word. The court should not accept the apology when it appears that saying sorry is nothing but a legal trick to wriggle out of responsibility. A true apology must be a deep ethical act of introspection, self-introspection, atonement and self-reform. In its absence, an apology can be termed as farse. It is equally settled that apology tendered is not to be accepted as a matter of course and the court is not bound to accept the same. Although, the apology may be unconditional, unqualified and bonafide, yet, if the conduct is serious which has cause damage to the dignity of the institution the same need not to be accepted. 15. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, for holding a person to have committed contempt, it must be shown that there was wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. But it was indicated that even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt. It was further observed that issuance of notice for contempt of Court and power to punish are having far reaching consequences, and as such, they should be resorted to only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1139 4 1999 (7) SCC 569 11 order is made out. A petitioner who complains breach of Court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court's order and if such allegation is proved, contempt can be said to have been made out, not otherwise. The Court noted that power to punish for contempt is intended to maintain effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice. 16. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors5, the Apex Court held that the Contempt of Courts Act has been introduced in the statute-book for securing confidence of people in the administration of justice. If an order passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of Court. There can be no laxity in such a situation because otherwise the Court orders would become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible defence. The power under the Act must be exercised with utmost care and caution and sparingly in the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of justice delivery system. In the present case, the order passed by this Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, as such breach of such order would amount to contempt of Courts. 17. From the above decisions, it is clear that punishing the person for Contempt of Courts is indeed a drastic step and normally such an action 5 2002 (4) SCC 21 12 should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme steps. For a proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance of the orders passed by the Courts, it is required to take strict view and it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. 18. Although the orders passed by the respondent dated 31.03.2023 & 17.05.2023 are in violation of the order passed by this Court, they cannot be set aside as requested by the petitioners. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners in State Bank of India and Others v. Dr. Vijay Mallya is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the said case the order of injunction has been violated wherein the Honourable Apex Court has set aside the subsequent transactions with regard to injunction order. As the facts of the present case differ from the said case, this Court cannot set aside the orders of the respondent herein. However, by virtue of the said act of the respondents, it would have definitely caused lot of mental agony to the petitioner apart from other expenditure. On account of faux pas situation that has been created by the respondent authority, this Court would inclined to compensate the same by imposing certain costs to the respondent by following the decision in Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs & Anr Vs P.Ravi Kumar & others6. 6 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3681 13 19. Further, the contents of the counter would go to show that there is carelessness on the part of the contemnor in passing the orders. As per the decisions referred supra, negligence and carelessness also amounts to contempt. However, this court, instead of imposing the sentence of imprisonment, with a lineant view, would inclined to impose fine of Rs.2000/- to the respondent and further would inclined to impose costs of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent in view of the loss incurred by the petitioner and mental agony caused to him by the action of the respondent. 20. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is wilful violation of orders of this Court. In exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this Court is inclined to allow the contempt case with the following directions: (i) The respondent/contemnor is directed to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- within thirty(30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. He shall deposit the said amount in the Registry of the A.P.High Court and on such deposit being made, the Registry shall remit the amount to A.P.High Court Legal Services Committee. In default payment of fine, the respondent/contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days. (ii) Further, the respondent/contemnor is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards costs to the petitioners from his own pocket 14 within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In default payment of costs, the respondent/contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days. (iii) The petitioners are at liberty to question the orders passed by the respondent dated 31.03.2023 & 17.05.2023 in accordance with law, if so advised. Accordingly, the contempt case is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS