Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A.J. Peter, Chittoor Dist. vs G. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Chittoor Dist. ... on 27 November, 2020
Author: J K Maheshwari
Bench: J K Maheshwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH wR AT AMARAVATI oo FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI JITENDRA KUMAR MAHRSHWARI ane] i CONTEMPT CASE NO: 153 OF 2019 So eee AND CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1814 OF 2016 CC No. 153/2019 Between: A J Peter, S/o Mr. Anandha Rao, Occ: Proprietor, M/s.J.P.Exports, D.No. 16-237, Srikalihasti Road, Renigunta, Chittoor District. ... Petitioner _ AND Dr Mohd Ilyas Rizvi, IFS, Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, K.M. Munshi Road, Nagarampalem, Guntur - 522004, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent/Respondent No.2 WHEREAS the petitioner has presented, under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the above case, through his counsel Mr. T.Lakshminarayana, praying the High Court to issue notice to the respondent/contemnor and punish him for willfully and deliberately flouting the order passed by this Court in CC.No. 1814 of 2016 dated 13-11-2017. CC No. 1814/2016 Between: A.J. Peter S/o Anandha Rao, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Prop. M/s J.P.Exports, D.No. 16-237, Srikalahasti Road, Renigunta, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner AND 1. G. Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o G. Venkata Rami Reddy, Occ: District Forest Officer, East Division, Chittoor Distirct, State of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Mr.P.K.Sarangi,, S/o Not Known to the petitioner, Aged Major, Occ: Prl.Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, Sankurathri Residency, Agathavarappadu, Mahatma Gandhi Inner Ring Road, Peda Kakani Mandal, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh - 522 509. 3. Mr.Janardhan Singh, S/o Not Known to the petitioner, Aged Major, Oce: Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, O/o DFO, East Division, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4. Mr.Bala Veeraiah, S/o Not Known to the petitioner, Aged Major, Occ: Forest Range Officer, O/o FRO, Kapilatheerdham, Kapilatheerdham Road, Tirupati - 517 501, Chittoor Dist. (R2 to R4 are impleaded as per the Hon'ble Court Order dated 07.04.2017 in Application No.164 of 2017 in CC No.1814 of 2016) (Contempt Case against R1 and R4 "DISMISSED" as per the Hon'ble Court Order dtd.28.07.2017 in CC No.1814/2016). WHEREAS the petitioner has presented, under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the above case, through his counsel Sri M.Dorai Raj, praying the High Court to issue notice to the respondents/contemnors and punish the them for willfully and deliberately flouting the order passed by this Court in W.B. No. 397 of 1999 dated 24-01-2012. . These Contempt cases coming on for hearing, and whereas the High Court, upon perusing the affidavits filed therein, the earlier orders 28.07.2017, 30.11.2017 made in CC No. 1814 of 2016, 22.01.2020 and 05.11.2020 made in CC No. 153 of 2019 and 1814 of 2016, and upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, made the following: ORDER:
"(Through Video-Conferencing) C.C.No.1814 of 2016 has' been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 24.01.2012 passed in W.P.No.397 of 1999 by the learned single Judge. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned single Judge is reproduced as thus:
"There is no dispute even from the counter that as per inventory on 06.07.1996, 3758 logs of Red Sanders were seized by the respondents from the petitioner's go-down. Now, both the counsel admit return of 2419 logs of Red Sanders by the Department to the petitioner. The balance to be returned is 1339 logs of Red Sanders. It is contended by the Government Pleader that there was fire incident in the go-down of the petitioner on 29.06.1996 and what was seized by the Department on 06.07.1996 included the burnt material. The said explanation which is now sought to be urged by the Government Pleader does not find place in the counter filed by the respondents. Even the seizure panchanama dated 06.07.1996 does not indicate that 3758 logs of Red Sanders seized by the Forest Officials included any burnt material. On the other hand, in para 15 of the counter, the 274 respondent tried to give explanation for loss of seized material in the following terms:
"For ground 8 it is clearly explained regarding the differences are due to misclassification and mixing of some logs into fuel and due to shrink of the material due to natural factors and heavy rains. Hence the contention of the petitioner is wrong. The respondents 1 and 2 were acted as per the law, and rules only and safeguarded interest of the public and the respondent 1 has not intentionally decided to avoid the points raised by the petitioner."
From the above explanation, the respondents, sought to explain to the effect that there was misclassification and mixing of some logs of Red Sanders into fuel and also due to shrink of the material due to natural factors and heavy rains. It is further alleged in the counter that bark of some of the seized Red Sanders came away due to which red colour of the wood became less and resulting in mixing of the said Red Sanders in fuel wood or soft wood. In any event, the above explanation sought to be given by the respondents will not satisfy the petitioner's claim for return of 1339 logs of Red Sanders to which he is entitled to in view of termination of criminal proceedings in his favour.
Insofar as forfeiture of deposits of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- are concerned, the enquiring authority who is the 2>4 respondent as well as the appellate authority who is the 1st respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner's said deposits are liable to be forfeited for violation of Red Sanders Possession Rules, 1989. Criminal proceedings in Court are totally different from and independent of forfeiture proceedings by the statutory authorities under the Rules. Termination of criminal proceedings in favour of the petitioner will not automatically entitle the petitioner for setting aside forfeiture of the security deposit amounts for violation of the Rules. The petitioner in this writ petition could not make out grounds against forfeiture of the said amounts by the respondents 1 and 2.
In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed issuing mandamus against the 224 respondent for return of 1339 logs of Red Sanders to the petitioner either in specie or in value within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs."
2. The aforesaid order was assailed in Writ Appeal No.1642 of 2012, which was decided on 26.12.2012. The appellate court while dismissing the writ appeal observed as thus:
"Learned counsel appearing for the respondent only tried to give an explanation for the loss of seized material that the difference which is apparent in the seizure list/panchanama are only due to mis-classification and mixing of the logs and due to shrink of the material due to natural factors and heavy rain. The contention of the writ petitioner cannot be accepted. However, after considering the facts as it would appear from the material placed before us, it appears to us, that such contention of the Government Pleader in the appeal cannot be accepted by us since it cannot be sustained by any material or records and none of such material or record has been produced before us. On the contrary it appears to us that in the criminal proceedings the panchanama was placed and the same has been accepted, where from it would appear the number of logs, which were seized by the appellants/authorities and on the basis of that the petitioner is already acquitted from the said criminal charges. Further, more, the seized logs, which appear in the panchanama were never disputed and further more the logs which were also returned to the writ petitioner were not in dispute by the learned Government Pleader. In view of that, we do not find there is any substance in this writ appeal. We find no illegality or irregularity in the order so passed by the Hon'ble single Judge. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned single Judge is confirmed."
3. Assailing both these orders, the Conservator of Forests, Ananthapur preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.23868 of 2013, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on merits on 23.02.2016. The said order is reproduced as thus:
"Since the factual position has not been disputed before the High Court, we are unable to appreciate the persuasive submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court is not justified in going into the disputed questions of fact. Hence we do not find any merit in this special leave petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed."
4, In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that 3758 logs of Red Sanders were seized from the petitioner. Out of the same, 2419 logs of Red Sanders were returned to him and the balance remained for returning were 1339 logs. The court, disbelieving the defence as taken by the Forest Department, held that even the documents filed by the Forest officials do not include any burnt material, however, the plea of burning the remaining logs of Red Sanders, was not found justified. Accordingly, the court, while issuing Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directed for return of 1339 logs of Red Sanders to the petitioner either in specie or in value within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The said order was confirmed in Writ Appeal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P., filed there- against, because the factual position has not been disputed by the Department before the High Court.
5. The respondents have filed the first response in this case on 16.03.2017 wherein the claim of the petitioner was denied on merits, inter alia, stating that the correct facts could not be brought to the notice with respect to the report of the Court Amin and the officials of the Department. Thereafter, another counter-affidavit was filed on 30.06.2017 reiterating the same fact, further taking an objection that contempt case after such a long time is not tenable, more so, the respondent has already been shifted from the place of posting. Thereafter, the case remained pending in the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was not received in the existing High Court. Therefore, in the meantime, C.C.No.153 of 2019 has been filed, in which also notices have been issued. In the meantime, C.C.No.1814 of 2016 has been received. Therefore, both these cases are listed for analogous hearing.
6. To consider the objections regarding limitation, it is clear that order was passed by the learned single Judge on 24.01.2012. The writ appellate court passed the order on 26.12.2012. Thereafter, S.L.P., was preferred in 2013, which was decided on 23.02.2016, dismissing the same. Thereafter only, C.C.No.1814 of 2016 has been filed on 14.09.2016 within a period of (7) months from the date of dismissal of the S.L.P. Therefore, the objection regarding limitation is not tenable.
7. Considering the counter-affidavit, which is contesting claim on merit, adjudicated by the Writ Court on undisputed facts, _ affirmed by the Supreme Court, the stand so taken in the contempt case cannot be sustained.
8. Much emphasis has been laid in the counter-affidavit dated 19.10.2020 regarding the Form-A, B & C filed by the petitioner stating that the same are fabricated and false, which has been rebutted by filing rejoinder on 05.11.2020.
9. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the return filed in W.P.No.397 of 1999, particularly, paragraph 11, it refers the inventory as on 06.07.1996 on which date, certificate of safe custody was issued by the Forest Officer, which is Form-C. The inventory as specified in paragraph 11 of the return filed by the State Government as well as the details of Form-C filed by the petitioner are same. It refers the same Re.No.3021/93/G38 and 3758 logs of Red Sanders, specifying 0267.975 cmt., which is equivalent to 1480 tonnes. Other descriptions also match as it is. Out of those 3758 logs of Red Sanders, which were found undisputed in the order of the learned single, indisputably, 2419 logs of Red Sanders were returned by the Department to the petitioner and, therefore, undisputed balance of 1339 logs of Red Sanders were directed to be returned to the petitioner in specie or in terms of value. In the said premises, the stand taken by the respondents since beginning, referring proceedings of some other case, raising the issue of limitation, change of the officer or of filing fabricated documents, is incorrect and only to circumvent the order of the court, all such flimsy defences are taken, which cannot be sustained in the contempt case.
9. As per counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is clear that, relying upon inventory of some other case, the Government wants to make payment of the money, that too, not with the adequate value as per the Government rate and on the other hand, respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner despite the order passed by this court, cdnfirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on admitted facts. When the court has issued directions during proceedings, the offer for payment of a sum of Rs.19 lakhs has been made and correspondence to that effect has been filed; however, all these stands do not speak bona fide on the part of the respondents. On the other hand, the order 24.01.2012, confirmed by the writ appellate court on 26.12.2012 and further confirmed by the Supreme Court on 23.02.2016, has not been complied since last eight (8) years; thereby the petitioner is not in a position to reap the fruits of the order of this court despite attaining finality upto the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is a fit case in which directions, to comply the order of the court within a timeframe, deserve to be issued.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that the admitted 1339 logs of Red Sanders of similar grade commensurate to the weight as specified in Form-C filed by the petitioner, ought to be returned. Looking to the directions as issued by the court, it is apparent that, at first instance, respondents ought to have returned 1339 logs of Red Sanders in specie or in the alternative the value thereof was required to be paid. In such circumstances, it is directed that the order of the court must be complied with by the respondents now within a period of three (3) weeks from today. The respondents shall identify 1339 logs of Red Sanders available of similar grade within the aforesaid period and return back to the petitioner. In case, respondents want to make payment of the value, the same should be as per the Government guidelines of the grade of the wood seized, with the consensus commensurate to the weight as specified in Form-C. The said exercise must be completed within the aforesaid period.
11. It is further directed that the present incumbent officers, i.e. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, and the Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Chittoor, Chittoor District, shall be joined by the petitioner by 30.11.2020 and thereupon, notices be issued to the said officers. The said officers shall submit compliance report; otherwise they shall remain personally present before this court.
12. List these cases for further orders on 21.12.2020 to submit compliance report."
Sd/-M.Nageswara Rao DEPUTY REGISTRAR"
SECTION'ORF SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To
1. Dr. Mohd Ilyas Rizvi, IFS, Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, K.M. Munshi Road, Nagarampalem, Guntur
- 522004, Andhra Pradesh. (By SPEED POST)
2. Mr. P.K.Sarangi, Pri. Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, Sankurathri Residency, Agathavarappadu, Mahatma Gandhi Inner Ring Road, Peda Kakani Mandal, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh - 522 509. (By SPEED POST) Mr. Janardhan Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, O/o DFO, East Division, Chittoor, Chittoor District. (By SPEED POST) One CC to Sri G.Tuhin Kumar, Advocate, (OPUC) One CC to Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) One CC to Sri M. Dorai Raj, Advocate (OPUC) Two CCs to GP FOR Forest, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]+ The Section Officer, O.S. Section, High Court of A.P. One spare copy CHONDA w MSR HIGH COURT HCJ DATE: 27-11-2020 NOTE: LIST THIS CASE FOR FURTHER ORDERS ON 21.12.2020.
ORDER C.C. NO. 153 OF 2019 And CC No. 1814 of 2016 DIRECTION Ae steegy age 2 PAD Gc walt : "eee iH