'Right Or Wrong, Court Order Must Be Obeyed': AP High Court Holds Transport Officials Guilty Of Contempt For Not Releasing Seized Vehicle
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that rightness or wrongness of an order cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings. The court further held that if the impugned order is contrary to law, then the contemnor is at liberty to challenge the order by way of a review or appeal.“Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that rightness or wrongness of an order cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings. The court further held that if the impugned order is contrary to law, then the contemnor is at liberty to challenge the order by way of a review or appeal.
“Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged, it cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible,” said Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda.
The bench was dealing with a contempt case initiated against the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Authorities, who did not release the seized car of the petitioner, despite orders of the Court.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The car of the petitioner was seized by the State Authorities, on the ground of non-payment of tax as per the APMVT Rules, 2021 and Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963. A writ was filed challenging the order, and the High Court directed the authorities to release the vehicle of the petitioner and directed him to cooperate with the authorities by submitting proper documents and replying to the demand notice.
The present contempt was filed by the petitioner contending that despite the order of the court, the respondents failed to release the vehicle, which would amount to contempt of court.
The respondents stated that when application was made by the petitioner for release of the vehicle, a show cause notice was issued directing the petitioner to produce original, authenticated documents for verification of residence proof, and sought an explanation as to why the petitioner should be exempted from payment of tax.
The respondents further contended that without replying to the show cause notice, the petitioner, paid the life tax on the same day through online and filed another representation stating that the petitioner recently moved to the state of Andhra Pradesh and is currently residing at Visakhapatnam and he wants to convert the vehicle registration from BH series to AP Series through necessary procedures. That the petitioner paid the necessary fine, documents, downloaded a payment receipt and release order from the website and removed his car from the seizure yard himself.
The respondents further contended that the petitioner was a resident of AP and with an intention to avoid legitimate tax due to the State had registered his car under the BH series, thus failed to reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner tried to play fraud on the court and approached it with unclean hands.
The Bench relying on Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah and Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others held:
“It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier decision If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court.”
The Court also disregarded the contention of the respondent that, the petitioner himself removed his car from the seizure lot, noting that the authorisation and removal order, is only sanctioned after the approval of the concerned authorities.
Thus, the Court disposed the contempt by imposing a cost of ₹2,000 on the Respondent. However, the contempt was suspended for a period of 4 weeks so as to prefer an appeal.
Case no.: CC 3926 of 2024
Counsel for petitioner: Peddibhotla Venkata Sai Rajesh
Counsel for respondents: Soma Raju Yelisetti