Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Menakenathana Reddy, Deputy ... vs Chippagiri Minerals And Chemicals And ... on 4 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)ALT174
Author: B. Seshasayana Reddy
Bench: B. Seshasayana Reddy
ORDER S.R. Nayak, J.
1. By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge having opined that the appellants herein who are respondents 1 and 2 in the contempt case have committed contempt of the Court's order dt. 16-8-1988 in W.P.No. 10938 of 1988, found them guilty of the contempt of court and accordingly, convicted them under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
2. Before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants herein that having regard to the judgments of the Full Bench in W.P.No. 9776 of 1993 and in L. Venkateswara Rao v. Singareni Collieries, , the directions of the learned Single Judge issued in W.P.No. 10938 of 1988 were not complied with. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that unfortunately for the State and the appellants herein, the provisions of Rule 10 of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and entry II of Schedule I appended to Rule 10 were not brought to the notice of the learned Judge who disposed of W.P. No. 10938 of 1988. It is stated that the learned Judge in the aforementioned writ petition was dealing with the burnt lime and if that is so, burnt lime squarely falls within entry II of Schedule I because that entry reads as follows:
"Lime stone other than classified as major minerals used for lime burning for building construction purposes."
3. In that view of the matter, we do not think that it is a fit case where the appellants herein should be punished. It is not that the Court should punish each and every one who has violated the Court's order. In order to punish in contempt proceedings, the persons against whom complaint is made should not only disobey the Courts order but such disobedience is shown to be deliberate and wanton.
4. Looking from that angle, we are satisfied that the disobedience of the appellants herein of the Court order could not be regarded as deliberate and intentional. A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Madras Telephone S.C. and S.T. Welfare Association, AIR 2000 SC 1717, in almost similar fact-situation, held thus--
"Since Departmental Authorities had not implemented the decisions of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995 for which a contempt petition had been filed, having regard to the circumstances under which the Departmental Authorities entertained bona fide difficulties, it would not be proper to proceed against the authorities under the contempt and the contempt proceedings accordingly are dropped. We would, however, direct the Departmental Authorities to proceed in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made by us in this Judgment and promotions may be made within a period of six months from the date of this Judgment."
5. In the result, we allow this appeal; set aside the order of the learned Single Judge; close the contempt case and discharge notice in Form No. 1 with no order as to costs.