Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G.J. Joseph vs T.S. Babu Rao And Ors. on 8 November, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(6)ALD479, 2003(1)ALT207
ORDER T. Meena Kumari, J.
1. The present contempt case has been filed alleging that the respondents herein have wilfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court dated 22.3.2002 passed in CMP No. 5810 of 2002 in CRP No. 1223 of 2002.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the contempt case, are as follows:
3. The petitioner herein filed OS No. 1472 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge, Hyderabad East and North, Ranga Reddy district for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein defendants in the suit and their followers from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property situated at Little Lamb Church of Vanasthalipuram i.e., house situated within the Little Lamb Church including the office room, watchman house, bore well, lavatory and baptism tank. The petitioner herein also filed IA No. 8471 of 2001 in OS No. 1472 of 2001 for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession over the petition schedule property pending disposal of the suit
4. The trial Court also after hearing both does and on perusing the entire record has come to the conclusion that the petitioner having been appointed as a pastor, the petitioner would have established his family in the suit premises The trial Court also observed that the documents filed by the respondents themselves suggest that the petitioner is in occupation of a house within the suit premises and he came into possession of the suit premises not as a trespasser, but by virtue of the permission given by the Committee of the Church. While observing that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner herein, the trial Court disposed of the I.A. on 21.12.2001 with the following directions:
"(1) The petitioner can continue his possession and occupation in the house within the suit premises in which he is staying now including the office room, watchman house, bore-well, lavatory and baptism tank.
(2) He can perform the duties as a Pastor (3) He shall not interfere in the administrative activities of the Church Committee and shall not dictate any terms to the Committee.
(4) He shall not interfere in the financial aspects of the Church (5) No order as to costs."
5. Questioning the said order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad East and North, Ranga Reddy District, the respondents herein filed CMA No. 16 of 2002 before the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The learned II Additional District Judge by an order dated 14.3.2002 has allowed the CMA by setting aside the order in I.A. dated 21.12.2001. Questioning the said order, the petitioner herein filed CRP No. 1223 of 2002 before this Court. In the said CRP, the petitioner filed CMP No. 5810 of 2002 seeking suspension of the operation of the order of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the CRP. This Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. C. Ramachandra Raju and the learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. J.C. Francis, who appeared for the respondents by way of caveat, while admitting the CRP on 22.3.2002 has passed the following order in CMP No. 5810 of 2002.
"There shall be an interim suspension of the operation of the order dated 14.3.2002 in CMA No. 16 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District However, the petitioner shall not perform the duties as a Pastor of Little Lamb Church of Vanasthalipuram, as directed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad East and North, RR District in IA No. 8471 of 2001 in OS No. 1472 of 2001 dated 21.12.2001 in direction No. 2 of his order until further orders."
At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein, the said order was allowed to be communicated by wire.
6. In the contempt case, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though the order of this Court has been communicated to the first respondent on 23.3.2002, the respondents have demolished the quarter of the petitioner in question with the help of some third parties.
7. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case is that respondents 1 and 2 with their followers 22 in number have broke open the doors and thrown out his house hold articles and threatened him and his family members that they would kill them if he does not vacate the Church. It is also further averred in the said affidavit that when the petitioner has brought the orders of this Court to the notice of respondents 1 and 2, they shouted at him and said that they do not care the orders of this Court and no one can prevent them from dragging out the house in question. It is also stated that immediately on 24.3.2002, he gave a complaint to the police authorities about the high handed action of the respondents. It is stated that at about 9.00 p.m., on 24.3.2002, all the respondents herein along with their followers formed into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons in the compound of the church and all the respondents and their followers stormed into his house and dragged out him and his family members from his house and confined them in the Church compound and thrown away the valuable house hold articles and took away the cash of Rs. 30,000/- from his house and demolished his house with the help of bull dozer. It is also stated that the respondents herein have also threatened them that they would kill him and his family members, if any report is lodged to the police. It is stated that because of the high handed action of the respondents in demolishing his house completely, himself and his family members left without any shelter. It is also stated that the petitioner has lodged another complaint to the police on 26.3.2002 and the record shows that on 27.3.2002, this contempt case has been filed before this Court for punishing the respondents.
8. The record shows that the contempt case has come up for admission on several dates and the respondents have entered their appearance through Ms. N. Swarna Reddy, Advocate. On 8.4.2002 and 26.4.2002, the respondents herein have filed the affidavits. The matter has come up for hearing on 15.7.2002 and the matter was adjourned. On 29.8.2002, when the case has come up, the contempt case was admitted and notices inform No. 1 were ordered and the case was posted to 30.9.2002 for appearance of the contemnors. Later, the case was adjourned to 7.10.2002, 21.10.2002, 23.10.2002, 28.10.2002 and 1.11.2002 and on all the above dates, the contemnors were present.
9. Mr. C. Ramachandra Raju, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that this Court has granted interim suspension of the orders of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy on 22.3.2002 and further observed that the petitioner herein shall not perform the duties as a Pastor of Little Lamb Church of Vanasthalipuram as directed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad East and North in IA No. 8471 of 2001 in OS No. 1472 of 2001 dated 21.12.2001, until further orders. The learned Counsel has further argued that the order of the appellate Court with regard to the other aspects have been suspended. Thus, as on 22.3.2002 when the interim suspension has been granted, the petitioner was in possession and even as on the date of demolition of the quarter in question, also the petitioner was in possession and the respondents demolished the structures of the house by throwing away the house hold articles only to circumvent the orders of this Court.
10. The learned Counsel has further argued that the petitioner has lodged a complaint to the police with regard to high-handed action of the respondents in demolishing the quarter in the Church in question and also filed this petition before this Court on 27.3.2002 under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the respondents have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court passed in CMP No. 5810 of 2002 in CRP No. 1223 of 2002 dated 22.3.2002.
11. Basing on the counters-affidavit filed by the first respondent and affidavits of the respondents , it has been argued by Mr. C. Vishnu Mohan Reddy appearing on behalf of Ms. Swarna Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondents-contemnors that on 25.3.2002 at about 2'O clock, (as mentioned by the first respondent in his counter-affidavit) some persons came to the Church and demolished the suit schedule premises. After having come to know about the incident, respondent No. 1 has lodged a complaint with the police and the same has been registered as a case in Crime No. 140 of 2002. The police during the course of investigation have identified three persons responsible for the said demolition and they have been arrested and produced before the concerned Court on 29.3.2002 for remand. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the police station is located hardly within 100 meters from the Church and had the respondents demolished the quarter, the petitioner could have lodged a complaint to the police and that the petitioner has no knowledge of the demolition and the respondents are in no way connected with the demolition. It is also further argued that the police found that some other persons were responsible for demolition. It is also further argued that respondent No. 1 was not at all present in the church from 23.3.2002, 24.3.2002 and 25.3.2002 on which dates some unknown persons have demolished the premises.
12. Mr. C. Vishnu Mohan Reddy appearing for the respondents relying on First Information Report has argued that a complaint has been lodged on 25.3.2002 by the respondents herein at 22.20 hours that in the morning of 25.3.2002, some group of persons have demolished the quarter in question . Thus, in view of the fact that the quarter of the Pastor has been demolished by some unknown persons, the respondents are in no way concerned and hence they are not liable for contempt.
13. The record shows that no counters have been filed by respondents 2 to 5. However, they have filed affidavits before this Court stating the facts. However, the first respondent has filed counter affidavit. On behalf of the respondents, copy of FIR and the charge-sheet have been filed as material papers and the petitioner has chosen to file reply to the affidavits of the respondents stating that he has intimated the order of this Court passed on 22.3.2002 to the respondents and that the respondents along with their followers have demolished the quarter at 9.00 p.m. on 24.3.2002 with bulldozer with a mala fide intention to defeat the orders of this Court and that there is no necessity to others to demolish the quarter. It is also stated that the houses of the second and fifth respondents are situated within the compound of the Church. The petitioner also filed third party affidavits before this Court in support of his contention that respondents 1 to 5 have demolished the quarter in question with the support of their henchmen.
14. As stated above, no counters have been filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 5 and respondent No. 1 filed counter stating that the petitioner has received an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the society on 13.11.2001 and vacated the premises. It is stated in the counter that he was not present on 24.3.2002 as alleged by the petitioner and that he came to know that some persons came to the Church and demolished the suit schedule premises on 25.3.2002 at about 2'O clock (as mentioned by the first respondent in his counter-affidavit) and later he lodged a complaint to the police. In the affidavits filed by the respondents 2 to 5, while denying the allegations made in the affidavit of the petitioner, it is stated that they were not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 and that they were not responsible for the demolition. Except narrating the same, nothing has been stated in the affidavits.
15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. Ramachandra Raju, has submitted that the demolition of the quarter in question did take place on 24.3.2002 at about 9.00 p.m with a bulldozer. The quarter in question was situated within the compound of the church and the quarters of the second respondent and fifth respondent were also situated in the same compound. Had some unknown persons have entered into the church premises and caused damage to the quarter, they should have also attempted to demolish or demolished the residential quarters of second and fifth respondents but they have not attempted to touch the quarters of others except the petitioner. Thus, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that that act could be done only with the connivance of the respondents/contemnors herein. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the absence of all contemnors from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 shows that they have with a mala fide intention left the church premises so as to create an impression in the public and in the eye of law that they were not present. The absence of all the contemnors including the watchman of the church shows that they have left the church to enable the others to demolish the quarter in question without any hindrance.
16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has issued a telegram on 24.3.2002 to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, LB Nagar stating that the first respondent has dragged him and his family members from the quarter in question and threw away the house-hold articles at about 8.30 p.m. on 23.3.2002 and he requested the Dy. Superintendent of Police to take action against the first respondent, namely, T.S. Babu Rao and there is no action as such from the police. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the third parties, namely, G. Janardhan Reddy and Sri B. Baliah have witnessed the incident and they have filed affidavits in support of the petitioner herein. It is also contended that with regard to the demolition, a news item has been published in Eenadu Daily Paper of 30.3.2002 in which the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sri Bhujanga Rao has stated that the committee members of the Church have demolished the quarter in question and they themselves have in-turn lodged a complaint. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the paper publication also reveals that the members of the Managing Committee of the Church were responsible for the demolition of the quarter of the Pastor.
17. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the respondents have demolished the quarter with an intention to disobey the orders of this Court. It is also further argued by the learned Counsel that in the affidavits of the contemnors, it is stated that along with accused Nos. 1 to 3 mentioned in the first information report, 20 persons including a woman along with a bull dozer trespassed into the house of the Pastor and removed all the household articles and demolished the house at about 2.00 p.m. but the contemnors have lodged the complaint on 25.3.2002 at about 10.20 p.m. It is also further contended that the residence of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 5 are situated within the same compound and that it is unbelievable that all the respondents were absent from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 and they could have prevented the demolition, even if it is assumed that it has been done by the third parties. As they have not taken any precautionary measures, it shows that they have disobeyed the orders of this Court.
18. It is also contended by Mr. C. Ramachandra Raju that the contention of the first respondent that he did not receive any telegram or notice as alleged by the petitioner is only an after thought and only to circumvent the orders of this Court. As seen from the record, the respondents herein were represented by Mr. J.C. Francis in the CRP and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.C. Francis who filed caveat on behalf of the respondents, this Court passed interim order in the CMP suspending the order of the lower appellate Court subject to the conditions specified therein. Hence, the contention of the respondents that they were not aware of the orders of this Court is untenable. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner herein has issued telegrams to the Courts below because of the fact that there is a likely threat of dispossession by the respondents.
19. The point for consideration is whether there is wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents/contemnors in violating the orders of this Court?
20. It has to be observed that this Court while admitting the CRP on 22.3.2002 granted interim order suspending the orders of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in CMA No. 16 of 2002. However, it was clarified by this Court that the petitioner herein shall not act as a Pastor of the church in question as directed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District. The above interim order passed by this Court was communicated by way of Telegram by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the respondents. The facts go to show that later the quarter of the petitioner in the compound of the church in question was demolished only thereafter. According to the petitioner, the demolition took place on 24.3.2002 at about 9.00 pm. by the respondents herein with the help of 20 other members. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have behaved unruly on 23.3.2002 at about 8.30 p.m. in all probability after the receipt of the said Telegram orders and the petitioner has lodged a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, L.B.Nagar and a certified copy of the telegram was filed as one of the material papers. According to the petitioner, the demolition did take place on 24.3.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. However, the respondents have lodged a complaint to the police on 25.3.2002 at 22.20 hours i.e., at about 10.20 p.m. in the night stating that in the morning of 25.3.2002 some unknown persons have demolished the residential quarter of the Pastor in question. The said complaint of the first respondent was registered as a case in Crime No. 140 of 2002 under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC and it was taken up for investigation. It is also to be noted that a charge-sheet has been filed before the concerned Magistrate on 13.8.2002. The case diary, which has been filed by the respondents in this case, reads as follows:
"the scene of offence is "Pastor's residence building" situated on the north east comer of the church premises. There is a church at the distance of 9' feets towards western side, and there is a room in the distance of 10' feets on the southern side to the scene of offence. All the household articles belonging to the Pastor G.J. Joseph, and dumped in the open place situated between main gate and entrance of the church. There is a open place belonging to water works on eastern side and open place belonging to HUDA on the northern side, and there are B.T. Roads on the southern and western side of the church compound wall. There is a Layola college also located on the south west comer of the Church.
The evidence collected revealed that, one G.J. Joseph, was appointed as Pastor to the Little Lamb Church, Vanasthalipuram in the year 1995, by the Little Lamb Church Committee. Since the date of appointment as Pastor, he has been residing in a house situated in the Church premises along with his family members, xxx xxx xxx Some of the accused used crowbars to dismantle the portion of the Pastor residence. As a result the Pastor residence completely collapsed. All the accused removed all the household articles and dismantled the Pastor's residence. xxx"
21. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been residing in the demolished premises and all his household articles have been thrown out and the quarter has been demolished on 24.3.2002 and according 1 to the respondents, the said demolition took place in the early hours of 25.3.2002. The counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent shows that the demolition did take place at about 2'O' clock on 25.3.2002 and the complaint has been lodged by the first respondent at about 10.20 p.m. on 25.3.2002 in which it has been stated that the demolition did take place by some unknown persons in the early hours of 25.3.2002. The above facts go to show that there is variation in the timings of the demolition and the reasons are not forthcoming for lodging a complaint so belatedly around 10.20 p.m. on 25.3.2002 when the incident took place in the early hours of the same day. According to the charge-sheet, the demolition took place on 25.3.2002 at about 2.00 p.m. The charge-sheet also reveals that nearly 20 persons including a woman entered into the church in question with a bulldozer and trespassed into the house of the petitioner herein and by taking advantage of the absence of the Pastor and his family members on 25.3.2002 at about 2.00 p.m., all the house-hold articles of the petitioner herein have been thrown outside of the quarter and the persons directed the driver of the bull dozer to demolish the RCC Building, which is being occupied by the petitioner as his residence. Even though there is a variation in the date as claimed by the petitioner and as that of the contemnors and also the timings, the fact remains that the Pastor's residence, which was in existence in the Church premises has been demolished and as per the charge-sheet, the household articles of the petitioner have been removed.
22. At this juncture, it is very pertinent to note that the case diary reveals that the petitioner has been residing in the Pastor's quarter and the articles belonging to the petitioner were thrown outside the quarter in between the main gate and entrance to the Church. It is also to be noted that the first contemnor has filed affidavit on 25.4.2002 wherein, at paragraph No. 5, it has been stated that after demolition, the police have conducted panchanama and found the items like iron chair, two benches, one dining table with chairs, two stools, old almirah, wooden cots, one bed, two pillows, old literature (Religious Books). Out of those articles, the old almirah belongs to the petitioner and remaining articles belong to the church and that they have no objection if the petitioner takes away the articles belonging to the petitioner. The above statement of the first respondent goes to show that the petitioner is very much continuous to be in possession and the same is also evident from the case diary as well as the charge-sheet.
23. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has not lodged any complaint and hence it cannot be said that he is aggrieved of the demolition. The material reveals that the petitioner has issued telegrams to the concerned police for taking necessary action and he has also lodged a complaint to the police about the unruly behaviour of the first respondent that took place on the night of 24.3.2002 at 8.30 p.m.
24. The main contention advanced on behalf of the respondents is that as the petitioner has not lodged any complaint against the action of demolition, he cannot have any grievance about the demolition of the quarter in question.
25. In this context, it has to be observed that the petitioner herein has stated in his affidavit that he has reported to the police on 26.3.2002 and he also approached this Court on 27.3.2002 immediately after the demolition stating that the respondents and others have demolished his quarter knowing fully well about the interim orders passed by this Court in CMP No. 5810 of 2002, wherein the order of the II Additional District Judge dated 14.3.2002 in CMA No. 16 of 2000 has been suspended. In view of the above, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents, Mr. C. Vishnu Mohan Reddy that the petitioner has no grievance for demolition of his quarter provided to him in the compound of the Church in question has no force in view of the fact that he has reported to the police about the demolition of his quarter on 26.3.2002 and that he filed contempt case before this Court without any delay.
26. In the case on hand, it has to be observed that the order of this Court, which has been passed after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein and Mr. J.C. Francis., who appeared on behalf of the respondents herein in the CRP, have been communicated by way of telegram to the Courts below and it shall be presumed that the respondents have the knowledge of the said order since they have filed caveat through Mr. J.C. Francis and this Court has passed the order after hearing the learned Counsel only. Moreover, the respondents did not state in their affidavits that Mr. J.C. Francis, the learned Counsel who appeared on their behalf, did not inform about the orders of this Court. Thus, it can be presumed that the respondents did have knowledge about the orders of this Court passed in CMP No. 5810 of 2002 dated 22.3.2002. Thus, the contention of the respondents that they did not receive any telegram or notice of the suspension order passed by this Court dated 22.3.2002 is only an after thought and it is only to circumvent the orders passed by this Court.
27. This Court in the case of Chandramouli v. Appa Rao, ILR 1968 AP 868, it has been held that the contemnor need not be officially communicated with the restraining order but it is sufficient that he had knowledge of the order. In this case, the respondents have filed caveat through Sri J.C. Francis, Advocate against the orders of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and this Court after hearing the Counsel for the respondents only passed the interim order suspending the orders of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in CMA No. 16 of 2002 dated 14.3.2002 and it was also made clear that the petitioner shall not perform the duties as a pastor of Little Lamb church of Vanasthalipuram. Thus, it has to be held that the respondents have knowledge about the orders of this Court.
28. The next contention urged on behalf of the respondents/contemnors is that the contemnors were not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002. It has to be observed that the complaint was lodged at 10.20 p.m. on 25.3.2002. Even the stand of the first respondent in the counter as well as in the affidavit that he was not present on 25.3.2002 is accepted, it is not known how he could lodge a complaint on 25.3.2002 at 10.20 p.m. Thus, the contention of the first respondent that he was not present on that day is only after thought. Respondents 2 to 5 have also filed affidavits, which are stereotype in nature, stating that they were also not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002. It is not stated in the affidavits that on what work and to which place they have gone leaving the Church premises for those three days. The respondents merely stated that they were not present and they left for religious propagation. It is highly difficult to presume that all the contemnors were not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 and the absence of all the contemnors from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 shows that to escape from the liability of contempt they were intentionally absent from the Church and their intentional absence has paved the way to the strangers to demolish the Pastor's residence by entering into church compound and their absence is only to circumvent the orders of this Court passed in CMP No. 5 810 of 2002 dated 22.3.2002.
29. Even the Sub-Inspector of Police has also stated that the articles have been found outside the disputed quarter and the first respondent himself has stated in his affidavit filed on 25.4.2002 that the police have conducted panchanama and found the articles, namely, iron chair, two benches, one dining table with chairs, two stools, old almirah, wooden cots, one bed, two pillows, old literature (religious books). It is also stated that out of the above articles, the old locked almirah belongs to the petitioner and keys are with him and they have no objection for taking the same but the other articles belong to the Church and it was provided by the Church to the first Pastor and those articles are meant for the usage of the successive pastors and these articles do not belong to the petitioner and he cannot claim right over the same. The above statement clearly shows that the petitioner continues to be in possession when the demolition did take place.
30. In reply affidavit of the petitioner, it has been stated that the quarters of the second and fifth respondents are situated within the church compound. It is very pertinent to note that at one breath, respondent No. 5, who is a watchman has stated that he was not present from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 and at another breath he has stated that he resides in the quarters of the watchman in the day time and he used to go for manual work and his wife is residing and he came to know through his wife on 25.3.2002 at 2 O' clock, (as mentioned by respondent No. 1 in his affidavit) that some unknown persons came to the church and demolished the church and at the time of incident, he was not present in the church. It is not known how he came to know about the demolition of the church on the same day itself. The stand taken by all the respondents that they were not present is unbelievable. But, however, they could came to know about the incident at 2.00 p.m. on 25.3.2002. Thus, from the contentions, it goes to show that the incident of demolition had taken place on 25.3.2002. However, in view of the fact that the complaint has been lodged on 25.3.2002 itself, it goes to show that the statement made in the affidavit is only an after thought to circumvent the orders of this Court. The case diary and the first information report also show that the articles of the petitioner were thrown out and have been dumped outside the quarter and the quarter of the petitioner was demolished in the absence of the petitioner.
31. In this case also, there is no information whatsoever from the respondents that they have taken any steps reasonably or otherwise to prevent the demolition and the statement made by the first respondent in his affidavit that the articles of the petitioners were found by the police and the petitioner can take away the articles, shows that the respondents have very scant respect to the orders of this Court. From the above discussion, it could be arrived that the respondents have utter disregard for the orders of this Court and as they have not prevented the demolition and they have taken a stand that they were not present in the Church from 23.3.2002 to 25.3.2002 shows that all these defences have been invented only to circumvent the orders of this Court. It is pertinent to note that the 20 persons who entered into the Church premises have demolished the quarter of the petitioner only and they did not even touch anything belonging to respondents 2 and 5 who also reside in the same compound. It is also pertinent to note that in any of the affidavits filed by the contemnors and in the counter-affidavit of the first respondent, no reasons have been stated for demolishing the quarter in question. No reason have been stated in the counter-affidavit of the first respondent and in the affidavits of the respondents for demolishing the premises, which is the subject matter in dispute. No reasons have also been attributed by the petitioners for demolishing the same by the outsiders. From this an adverse inference can be drawn that the respondents are responsible for the said demolition of the residence of the Pastor. In the absence of any reasons stated in the affidavit that they have taken steps to avoid the demolition, an inference can also be drawn that the respondents themselves have paved the way to the others to demolish the quarter of the pastor contrary to the order of this Court passed on 22.3.2002 in CMP No. 5810 of2002.
32. The High Court of Patna in the case of Mst. Manmati Kner v. Ram Gopal Singh, , has held that to justify the committal of a person for contempt of breach of an order commanding him not to do a particular act, it is sufficient if there is proof that the party had knowledge of the order aliunde and that he knew that it was intended to be enforced.
33. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of The High Court v. S.N. Mathur and Ors., (1976) PLR 133, has held that when the person complained against is shown to be aware of the order, it is immaterial that the order had not been formally served upon him and the officials who respectively passed the order and accorded approval to it were both held to be liable for contempt.
In this case also, this Court passed the order on 22.3.2002 after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein and of Mr. J.C. Francis who appeared on behalf of the respondents by way of filing caveat. Hence, it has to be held that the respondents have the knowledge of the order of this Court dated 22.3.2002 passed in CMP No. 5810 of 2002.
34. This Court in the case of Advocate General v. Abbaraju Rama Rao, , has held that the whole conduct of the contemnors have to be taken into consideration.
35. The Apex Court in the case of Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 81, it has been held that exemplary costs ordered to be paid by the respondents to the aggrieved persons in case of wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court.
36. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India, , (popularly known as Babri Masjid demolition case) held at para 13, 14, 15, 16 as follows:
"13. The next question is whether these activities were carried on by a congregation of Sadhus at the site and not by the State Government and despite Government's efforts. Apart from a glib suggestion that any attempt to prevent the work would have created a violent situation endangering the safety of the 'Ram Janma Bhoomi Babri Masjid structure' itself, nothing is indicated as to what was sought to be done at all to prevent constructional material coming in. There is no mention in any of the affidavits of any of the officers as to what reasonable measures the Government took to prevent the inflow of constructional material such as large quantities of cement, mortar, sand, constructional equipment, water-tankers etc., that were necessary for the work. The report of the Expert Committee has indicated that constructional machinery was indispensable having regard to the nature and magnitude of the work carried out. While it is understandable that the prevention of the gathering of Sadhus might have created some resentment, it is understandable why large quantities of building materials were allowed to be brought on the land unless it be - and that must be the reasonable presumption - that the Government itself was not too anxious to prevent it. It is not merely positive acts of violation but also surreptitious and indirect aids to circumvention and violation of the orders that are equally impermissible. If reasonable steps are not taken to prevent the violation of the orders of the Court, Government cannot be heard to say that violation of the orders were at the instance of others. The presumption is that the Government intended not to take such preventive steps. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to persuade ourselves to the view that the Government was helpless and the situation that had developed was in spite of all reasonable steps taken by the Government. Indeed there is no indication that the Government bestirred itself to take any steps, reasonable or otherwise, to prevent large scale building material getting into the site. The Chief Minister having given a solemn assurance to the National Integration Council and permitted the terms of that assurance to be incorporated as his own undertaking to this Court and allowed an order to be passed in those terms cannot absolve himself of the responsibility unless he placed before the Court sufficient material which would justify that he had taken all reasonable steps and precautions to prevent the occurrence. Indeed, if such reasonable steps had been taken he could not be faulted merely because he did not do the best by the standards of others. In this case, we find no explanation at all apart from the fact that the Sadhus had congregated in that place in large number, as to what steps the Government took to prevent the constructional equipment from getting into site. If any reasonable effort had been made and evidence of that placed before Court, it might have been possible for the Court to assess the situation in the light of that explanation to find out whether such steps had been taken. In the absence, we are constrained to hold that the Government failed to take steps to prevent the grossest violation of the order of this Court. We record a finding accordingly.
14. The last question is whether the undertaking furnished by the Chief Minister was a personal undertaking or was on behalf of the State of U.P. It was both.
There is no immunity for any authority of Government, if personal element is shown in the act of disobedience of the order of the Court, from the consequence of an order of the Court xxx The State Government is, therefore, liable in contempt. A Minister or Officer of Government is also either in his official capacity or if there is a personal element contributing to contempt, in his personal capacity, liable in contempt.
15. We find that the undertaking given by Sri Kalyan Singh was both in his personal capacity and on behalf of his Government. There has been a flagrant breach of that undertaking. There has been wilful disobedience of the order.
16. It is unhappy that a leader of a political party and Chief Minister has to be convicted of an offence of Contempt of Court. But, it has to be done to uphold the majesty of law. We convict him of the offence of Contempt of Court. Since the contempt raises larger issues which affect the very foundation of the secular fabric of our nation, we also sentence him to a token imprisonment of one day. We also sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-xxx."
Thus, the Supreme Court in the above case has held that the action of the respondents therein in not preventing the demolition of structures in the disputed site as the intentional, wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Supreme Court.
37. In the instant case, either in the affidavits of the respondents or in the counter-affidavit of the first respondent they did not state about the steps that were taken by them to prevent the demolition of the quarter of the petitioner. Moreover, in any of the affidavits filed by the contemnors and in the counter affidavit of the first respondent/first contemnor, no reasons have been stated for demolishing the quarter of the petitioner by the outsiders. Therefore, the contemnors cannot be protected by the plea of non-availability in the station on the specified dates when the demolition took place and that they cannot take any shelter by saying that the third parties have demolished the premises in question without their knowledge.
38. In view of the above judgments, it has to be held that the respondents have willfully, intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court for not preventing the demolition of the quarter of the Pastor in question situated in the Church compound, which is the subject matter of the civil revision petition and also in the CMP and particularly when the orders of this Court in the CMP No. 5810 of 2002 are in force.
39. The Apex Court, in the latest judgment, in the case of Prem Surana v. Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, , has held as follows:
"The introduction of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the statute book has been for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general for due and proper administration of justice in the country. Undoubtedly, a very powerful weapon rests in the hands of the Law Courts through the statute, and it is also true that the law Courts must exercise the same with due care and caution and for larger interest. Contemptuous conduct and obstruction to the majesty of law is the basic reasoning for which the law makers thought it prudent to engraft in the statute book this particular legislation.
On the state of the facts, as noticed above, can the Court maintain silence and permit the situation go unheeded? The answer again cannot be in the affirmative. Our justice delivery system would be in a swamp xxx"
40. The High Court of Calcutta in the case of Shyam Sundar v. Satchidananda Rakshit, , has held that the punishment should be primarily for upholding the dignity of the Court and maintaining due respect for the administration of justice and there should be no element of vindictiveness in it and it should not be allowed to be used for feeding fat private grudge or as an offensive weapon to satisfy private vendetta.
41. In this case, it is pertinent to note that the respondents/contemnors in their affidavits or in the counter-affidavit of the first respondent, did not even tender apology to this Court. This conduct of the respondents necessarily would have an impact on the quantum of punishment.
42. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and as the contemnors have not prevented the demolition of the quarter in question and also in view of the fact that they have not apprised this Court about the preventive steps that were taken by them to avoid the demolition, it has to be held that the respondents have wilfully, intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 22-3-2002 in CMP No. 5810 of 2002 in CRP No. 1223 of 2002 and hence they are found guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each.