1 APHC010158212024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1947/2024 Between: 1. S.MD. YOUSUF,, S/O. LATE. S. FAKRUDDIN, AGED 69 YEARS, OCC RETD EMPLOYEE, R/O. 12-05-127, FCI COLONY, NEAR LIG BUS STOP, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Y SREE LAKSHMI IAS, W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, A P SECRETARIAT, (HYDERABAD) PRESENTLY AT AMARAVATHI 2. B RAJA GOPALA RAO, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, VICE CHAIRMAN AND HOUSING COMMISSIONER, THE ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD, R/O. SKODA SHOWROOM, PRASADAMPADU, CURRENCY NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 521108. 3. D RAVI KUMAR GUPTA, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (HOUSING), A P HOUSING BOARD, KUMOOL DIVISION, KUMOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH ...CONTEMNOR(S): 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 pleased to summon and punish the respondents herein under the provisions of Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for 2 intentionally, deliberately, willfully violated the orders and disobedience of the Orders passed by His Lordships Hon'ble Smt Justice V.SUJATHA in W.P.No.32176 of 2014 dated 12.05.2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SREE RAMULU NAIDU Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. Y V SRINIVASAN 2. 3. Y V SRINIVASAN(SC FOR AP HOUSING BOARD) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER This Contempt Case has been filed alleging wilful disobedience and non-compliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32176 of 2014, dated 12.05.2023. 2. By the aforesaid order, this Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 19.07.2014 and remanding the matter to the 4th respondent with a direction to review the amount payable by the petitioner by duly considering the representation made by the petitioner on 16.05.1991, as per the rules existing in the year 1991 and in accordance with law. The said exercise was directed to be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “….In view of the order passed by this Court and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel on both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of that the petitioner has made a representation on 16.05.1991 for the extra piece as per the details furnished by the respondent Corporation, this Court feels it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 19.07.2014 and remand the matter back to the 4th respondent directing him to review the amount payable by the petitioner by duly considering the representation made by the petitioner on 16.05.1991 as per the rules existing in the year 1991 in accordance with law. The said process shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order….” 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present Contempt Case is that the respondents have failed to comply with the aforesaid order in its entirety. According to the petitioner, though the respondents have issued proceedings dated 21.06.2023, the representation dated 16.05.1991 was not actually considered in the manner directed by this Court and the respondents have merely reiterated their earlier stand. 4 4. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit disputing the allegations made by the petitioner. It is specifically stated that, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 12.05.2023, the representation dated 16.05.1991 submitted by the petitioner was considered with reference to the rules prevailing in the year 1991 and in accordance with law and, thereafter, orders were passed. 5. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents have specifically stated as follows: “9. I respectfully submit that, therefore, after considering the Representation of the Petitioner dated 16-05-1991 ‘as per the Rules existing in the year 1991 in accordance with law’ as directed by this Hon'ble High Court vide Order, dated 12-05-2023, in W.P.No.32176 of 2014, and also obtaining Legal Opinion, it was found that as per the Rules existing in 1991 APHB has no power to sell the said land to the Petitioner and can sell it only by conducting public auction. Hence, his representation for sale of the Housing Board Land situated adjacent to his house was rejected as per the Rules existing in the year 1991 and the Order of the Hon'ble High Court, by a detailed Order vide Lr.No.H.No.244 LIG-I/Ph.-I/ATP/EE/KNL/2023/289, dated 21-06-2023. Therefore, the Order of this Hon'ble High Court was duly complied with well within the time granted by this Hon'ble High Court. The allegation of the Petitioner that the said letter was posted on 24- 07-2023 by ante-dating is not correct and is denied and, as can be seen from the said Letter, copy of which is filed herewith, it is signed by the Respondent No.3 herein (Respondent No.4 in the main W.P.) on 21-06-2023, and the despatch stamp shows that it was despatched on 22-06-2023 itself. Further, the Petitioner has mischievously referred to G.O.Ms.No.6 at paragraph No.5 of his Affidavit without mentioning its date which is 29-03-2011, whereas this Hon'ble High Court had clearly directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner as per the Rules existing in 1991. Therefore, the G.O. of the year 2011 cannot be applied. 5 10. I respectfully submit that therefore there are no merits in the above Contempt Case, and it was filed without bonafides and with an ulterior motive to put pressure on the Respondents with the threat of contempt in utter abuse and misuse of the process of Contempt.” 6. It is, therefore, the specific case of the respondents that the representation dated 16.05.1991 was duly considered in the light of the rules prevailing in the year 1991 and that, upon obtaining legal opinion, the competent authority came to the conclusion that the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board did not have the power, under the rules prevailing in the year 1991, to sell the subject land to the petitioner otherwise than by way of public auction. On that basis, the petitioner's request was rejected by proceedings dated 21.06.2023. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, seriously contended that, at the time of disposal of the writ petition, the respondents had taken a specific stand that they were not in possession of the representation dated 16.05.1991 submitted by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, notwithstanding the said stand, the respondents have subsequently stated that they considered the very same representation and passed proceedings dated 21.06.2023. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondents have not, in fact, considered the contents of the representation dated 16.05.1991 and have merely relied upon the rules prevailing in the year 1991 to reject the petitioner's request. It is therefore contended that the order dated 12.05.2023 has not been complied with in its true spirit and entirety. 9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and has perused the material placed on record. 10. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the limited scope of jurisdiction exercised by a Court in contempt proceedings. The Hon'ble 6 Supreme Court reported in Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others 1 , while considering the scope of contempt jurisdiction, held in paragraph 11 as follows: “11. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of court is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition, be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is 1 (2002) 5 SCC 352 7 alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein, then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind, then criticisms which are sometimes levelled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute can be avoided in its entirety. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts.” 11. In the light of the aforesaid principle, the question that falls for consideration in the present Contempt Case is whether the respondents have deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the specific direction issued by this Court in the order dated 12.05.2023. 12. A careful perusal of the order dated 12.05.2023 passed in W.P.No.32176 of 2014 would show that this Court set aside the proceedings dated 19.07.2014 and remanded the matter to the 4th respondent with a specific direction to review the amount payable by the petitioner by duly considering the representation dated 16.05.1991, as per the rules existing in the year 1991 and in accordance with law. The exercise was directed to be 8 completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 13. It is not in dispute that, pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondents issued proceedings dated 21.06.2023. In the said proceedings, the respondents have stated that the representation dated 16.05.1991 was considered with reference to the rules prevailing in the year 1991 and that, under the said rules, the Housing Board had no power to sell the subject land to the petitioner except by way of public auction. The request of the petitioner was accordingly rejected. 14. The respondents have also specifically pleaded in the counter- affidavit that the representation dated 16.05.1991 was considered after obtaining legal opinion before arriving at the conclusion reflected in the proceedings dated 21.06.2023. The respondents have further stated that the proceedings were signed on 21.06.2023 and despatched on 22.06.2023. 15. The contention of the petitioner that the respondents have not properly considered the representation dated 16.05.1991 and that they have not dealt with the contents thereof in the manner expected by the petitioner essentially raises a question concerning the correctness, adequacy and legality of the decision taken by the respondents. 16. It is settled law that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate or reviewing jurisdiction over the decision taken by the alleged contemnor in purported compliance with the order of the Court. Once the Court finds that the direction contained in the order has been acted upon and a decision has been taken pursuant thereto, the correctness or otherwise of such decision cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in contempt proceedings. 17. In the present case, the direction issued by this Court was not to necessarily accept the representation of the petitioner or to grant the relief sought by him. The direction was to review the amount payable by the 9 petitioner by duly considering the representation dated 16.05.1991, as per the rules existing in the year 1991 and in accordance with law. 18. The material placed before this Court, including the proceedings dated 21.06.2023 and the specific averments made in the counter-affidavit, shows that the respondents have undertaken the exercise directed by this Court and have taken a decision with reference to the rules prevailing in the year 1991. The fact that the conclusion arrived at by the respondents is adverse to the petitioner cannot, by itself, constitute wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. 19. The grievance of the petitioner that the respondents have not correctly appreciated the representation dated 16.05.1991, or that they have failed to properly apply the applicable rules, or that the reasons assigned in the proceedings dated 21.06.2023 are legally unsustainable, are matters which would require adjudication on the merits of the proceedings dated 21.06.2023. Such an exercise would fall outside the limited scope of contempt jurisdiction. 20. This Court also cannot, in the present contempt proceedings, examine whether the conclusion of the respondents that the Housing Board had no power to sell the subject land to the petitioner under the rules prevailing in the year 1991 is legally correct. Equally, this Court cannot adjudicate upon the applicability or otherwise of G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 29.03.2011, in these contempt proceedings, since such questions relate to the merits of the decision taken by the respondents. 21. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 21.06.2023, including the manner in which his representation dated 16.05.1991 has been considered, the interpretation placed by the respondents upon the rules prevailing in the year 1991, or the conclusion arrived at by them, it is always open to the petitioner to question the same before the 10 appropriate forum by initiating independent proceedings in accordance with law. 22. At the same time, this Court makes it clear that the present finding is confined only to the question whether there has been wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order dated 12.05.2023. No opinion is expressed on the correctness, legality or merits of the proceedings dated 21.06.2023. 23. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the limited scope of contempt jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered view that the material placed on record does not establish any wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order dated 12.05.2023 by the respondents. 24. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies in respect of the proceedings dated 21.06.2023, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 07.08.2026 RJS 11 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA C.C.No.1947 of 2024 07.08.2026 RJS