Correctness Of Judicial Order Said To Be Wilfully Disobeyed Can't Be Decided In Contempt Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. "While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order...That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible," Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy held.The Bench ruled that utter disobedience of the order in the case caused serious damage to the judicial institution itself. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be decided in contempt proceedings. The authorities have to implement the order without giving any interpretation to it. Brief facts of the case The Contempt Case was filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by petitioners for wrongful disobedience of the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the High Court. The High Court had passed the interim direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question. After the interim order, the respondent are said to have intentionally made an attempt to demolish the buildings of the petitioners and demolished part of the compound wall in violation of orders passed by the Court. As a consequence, the petitioners filed the contempt case. The respondent in their contention raised the plea that the land was allotted to railways which was covered by wild growth, the petitioners had occupied the land unlawfully and illegally, thereby the respondents/ revenue authorities along with the railway department demolished the unauthorized construction and erected caution boards stating that "the land is Government Land". Ruling of the Court The court noted that when once the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of property as encroachers, the procedure under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 should have been followed to remove such unauthorized encroachment. However, despite the interim direction and without adhering to the procedure, the Respondent demolished the compound wall to remove the encroachment from the government land. Such act would be a Civil Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. It ruled that court in an application of contempt proceedings cannot test correctness of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction as that would amount to exercising review jurisdiction. "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." The court held that the order has to be implemented as directed by the Court, and if the order is contrary to law, they are at liberty file appropriate appeal before the appellate authority. But, without preferring an appeal, the respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and give different meaning to it. "When once an order is passed, it is the duty of the authorities to implement the same without giving any interpretation and if the order is contrary to law, they are at liberty file appropriate appeal before the appellate authority. But, without preferring an appeal, the respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and give different meaning to the order passed by the Court, which is sought to be implemented, as directed by this Court and such act of the respondent/contemnor is illegal in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah." The court ruled there was utter disobedience of the order in the case and the order was violated consciously by demolishing the compound wall on the pretext of removal of encroachments, despite subsistence of order passed by the Court. Thus, the court allowed the contempt case as lenient view against the respondent authorities would cause serious damage to the judicial institution itself.It directed the Respondent-Tahsildar to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000. Case Title: AJAY KUMAR PARASARAMKA Versus PRADEEP KUMAR RATHCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 68 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Correctness Of Judicial Order Said To Be Wilfully Disobeyed Can't Be Decided In Contempt Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Jagriti Sanghi

Tags