Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rev Bugge A Kumar vs M Venkateswara Rao on 4 February, 2022
Author: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Contempt Case No.170 of 2019
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging violation of orders passed by this Court in IA No.1 of 2019 in WP No.302 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019.
WP No.302 of 2019 was filed "to declare any permission granted by respondents 1 to 4 to respondents 5 to 9 to conduct the 2019 Annual gospel Meeting from 27.01.2019 to 29.01.2019, as illegal and arbitrary and to stop the conduct of the 2019 Annual Gospel Meeting by respondents 5 to 9." IA No.1 of 2019 was filed to grant interim suspension of any such permission to 2019 Annual Gospel Meeting. In the said I.A., this Court passed the following order:
"In view of the fact that the permission was already refused to the unofficial respondents for conduct of the 2019 Annual Gospel Meeting from 27.01.2019 to 29.01.2019 at Nachugunta village, Unguturu Mandal, no further orders are necessary for the present.
Learned counsel for the petitioners apprehends that in spite of the rejection of the permission, the unofficial respondents would conduct the 2019 annual gospel meeting from 27.01.2019 to 29.01.2019 at Nachugunta village, Unguturu Mandal, as was done in the previous year, which is subject matter of the contempt case.
In view of the same, the official respondents are directed to act in accordance with law to see that there should not be any law land order violation."
Alleging violation of the said order dated 25.01.2019 by the respondents, present contempt case is filed.
In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it is stated that in spite of the orders of this Court, respondents 4 to 8 have conducted the said meeting from 27.01.2019 to 29.01.2019 and that 2 KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019 respondents 1 to 3 did not stop the unlawful action of respondents 4 to 8 and hence, respondents herein have deliberately violated the orders of this Court.
Counter-affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent i.e., Ch.V. Ramesh, who worked as Sub Inspector of Police, Chebrolu PS, West Godavari District from 23.01.2019 to 03.07.2019, stating inter-alia that the 5th respondent has submitted a representation dated 13.11.2018 to then Sub Inspector of Police, to accord permission to carry out canvassing and to conduct public meeting and the same was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Police Officer for necessary action but he has not accorded permission to use loud speakers for 'Christian meeting and also for auto canvassing' at the meeting of Bible Mission Church and rejected the request of the 5th respondent; contention of the petitioners that respondents 1 to 3 have allowed respondents 4 to 8 to proceed with the conduct of the meeting and that it is deliberate violation of the Court order is not correct; no untoward incidents have happened during his tenure and no cases were registered against any one on the file of Chebrolu PS and that he did not violate the orders passed by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the contempt case.
Counter-affidavit is also filed by the 7th respondent, on behalf of respondents 5 to 8, stating inter-alia that there is no executable order passed by this Court against them and direction was only to the official respondents to act in accordance with law and that there should not be any law and order violation; the writ petition itself has become infructuous by the date of passing of the order and the petitioners filed SOP No.445 of 2017 against the unofficial respondents under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act and the same is pending adjudication 3 KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019 before the Special Court; I.A. filed by the petitioners before the Special Court against the unofficial respondents seeking temporary injunction restraining them from doing activities was dismissed on 02.06.2018 and another I.A. filed by the petitioners against the unofficial respondents to restrain them from making constructions in the property of the Bible Mission was also dismissed on 02.06.2018 and the said facts were suppressed in the present writ petition; 1st petitioner was suspended on 07.06.2017 and subsequently expelled from the Bible Mission on 04.12.2017; the said order is not challenged in any Court and that they have not violated any order and prayed to dismiss the contempt case.
Sri Krishna C.V. Grandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that as the permission was refused to the unofficial respondents to use loud speakers for the meeting and for auto canvassing and as they used the mike in the said meeting and as the official respondents did not take any action, it would amount to violation of the orders passed by this Court. He further submits that this Court directed the official respondents to see that there should not be any law and order violation, but the unofficial respondents have violated the provisions of Sections 30 to 32 of the Police Act.
Learned Government Pleader for Home & Law appearing for the official respondents submits that there is no positive contempt committed by the official respondents and the conduct of the meeting is not violation and no untoward incident has occurred in the meeting.
Smt. P.M. Sunitha, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents submits that there is no executable order against them and that there is no averment that the law and order was violated and no complaint whatsoever has been given by the petitioners and hence, 4 KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019 there is no willful disobedience of the orders of this Court. She also specifically submits that no mikes were used on the date of the meeting and that the material filed by the petitioners is a fabricated one.
As seen from the order dated 13.11.2018 of the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Eluru, permission was refused to the unofficial respondents and the copy of the said refusal order was filed along with the counter-affidavit. The said proceedings read as follows:
"Permission is hereby not accorded to use loud speaker for 'Christian meeting and also auto canvassing' at the meeting of Bible Mission Church in Nachugunta of Unguturu Mandal, because the Bible mission church matter is in Hon'ble Court as a civil matter."
In view of the said proceedings, what is prohibited is only to use the loud speaker and auto canvassing. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, in paras 5 to 7, it is stated thus:
"5. I respectfully submit that in spite of the orders of the Hon'ble Court, Respondents Nos.4 to 8 conducted 2019 Annual gospel Meeting from 27.01.2019 to 29.01.2019 at Nachugunta village, Unguturu Mandal. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein did not consider the order of this Hon'ble Court and have not stopped the unlawful action of the Respondents Nos.4 to 8.
6. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.4 to l8, in violation of a similar order of this Hon'ble Court in 2018, conducted the 2018 Annual Gospel Meeting. A contempt petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents vide CC No.397/2018 in WP No.1369 of 2018 is currently pending before the Hon'ble High Court.
7. It is respectfully submitted that in spite of the orders of the Hon'ble Court, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 allowed Respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein to proceed with the conduct of 2019 Annual Gospel Meeting from 27.01.2019 to 29.01.2019 at Nachugunta village, Unguturu Mandal. Therefore, respondents have intentionally and deliberately violated the order of this Hon'ble Court and committed contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act."
5
KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019 As seen from the above paragraphs, it is only stated that respondents 4 to 8 have conducted the meeting and that respondents 1 to 3 allowed respondents 4 to 8 to proceed with the meeting. It is not even averred in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case that the permission was refused to use the loud speakers and auto canvassing and that in spite of the same, loud speakers were used and auto canvassing was also done. Learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that CDs also show that the meeting was conducted by using mikes. As there is no averment in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case that mikes were used and auto canvassing was done, there is no denial in the counter-affidavit. However, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submits that the documents and the CDs were fabricated and that no mikes were used in the said meting.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Sections 30 to 32 of the Police Act, 1861.
Sections 30 to 32 of the Police Act, read as follows:
"30. Regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of the same.--
1. The District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police may, as occasion requires, direct the conduct of all assemblies and processions on the public roads, or in the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the routes by which, and the times at which, such processions may pass.
2. He may also, on being satisfied that it is intended by any persons or class of person to convene or collect an assembly in any such road, street or thoroughfare, or to form a procession which would, in the judgment of the Magistrate of the district, or of the sub- division of a district, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace, require by general or special notice that the persons convening or collecting such assembly or directing or promoting such procession shall apply for a licence.
3. On such application being made, he may issue a license specifying the names of the licensees and defining the conditions 6 KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019 on which alone such assembly or such procession is to be permitted to take place and otherwise giving effect to this section: Provided that no fee shall be charged on the application for, or grant of, any such licence.
4. Music in the streets:- He may also regulate the extent to which music may be used in the streets on the occasion of festivals and ceremonies.
31. Police to keep order in public roads, etc.:- It shall be the duty of the police to keep order on the public roads, and in the public streets, thoroughfares, ghats and landing places, and at all other places of public resort, and to prevent obstructions on the occasions of assemblies and processions on the public roads and in the public streets, or in the neighbourhood of places of worship, during the time of public worship, and in any case when any road, street, thoroughfare, ghat or landing- place may be thronged or may be liable to be obstructed.
32. Penalty for disobeying orders issued under last three sections, etc.--
Every person opposing or not obeying the orders issued under the last three preceding sections, or violating the conditions of any license granted by the District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police for the use of music, or for the conduct of assemblies and processions, shall be liable, on conviction before a Magistrate, to a fine not exceeding two hundred rupees."
Section 30 of the Police Act, deals with the regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of the same, Section 31 deals with order on public roads etc. and Section 32 deals with the penalty for disobeying orders issued under last three sections etc. According to sub- section (3) of Section 30, licence can be issued defining the conditions on which alone such assembly or such procession is to be permitted to take place. In the present case, in fact permission was refused to use the loud speakers and auto canvassing vide order dated 13.11.2018 by the Sub Divisional Police Officer. The order in the writ petition is to see that there is no law and order violation. Contention of the learned 7 KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019 counsel for the petitioners is that as the unofficial respondents used the loud speaker, it is a violation of law and order. Whether the unofficial respondents used the mike or not is a disputed question of fact, as the unofficial respondents are denying the same. Assuming for a moment that the unofficial respondents have used the mikes in spite of the rejection order, it will only enable the police to take appropriate action basing on a complaint. At any rate, it will not be a violation of the order of this Court. Admittedly, there is no complaint filed by the petitioners alleging law and order violation and hence, it cannot be said that there was law and order problem and police failed in taking action to maintain law and order.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is no willful violation of the orders passed by this Court in IA No.1 of 2019 in WP No.302 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019 by the respondents, the contempt case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this contempt case, shall stand closed.
________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date: 04.02.2022 BSS 8 KVL, J CC No.170 of 2019 HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI Contempt Case No.170 of 2019 204 Date: 04.02.2022 BSS