Telangana High Court
Banoth Gopal And 2 Others vs B.Janardhan Reddy on 4 December, 2020
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
C.C.No.49 of 2020
ORDER:
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents informed this Court that the case of the petitioners was considered and the same was rejected vide orders dt.19-12-2019 and therefore, the orders dt.23-10-2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.13204 of 2019 passed by this Court have been complied with.
Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that it is not a compliance as per the orders passed by this Court since the respondents have deliberately rejected thee case of thee petitioners and therefore they are liable for punishment under Contempt of Courts Act. He relied upon the judgement of this Court in Ch. Narayana Reddy v. D.Krishna Bhaskar1, wherein, this Court in para No.26, held as follows:
26. The Supreme Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd.1 approved the principle in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hadkinson v. Hadkinson2 that a party, who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it; and they cannot themselves judge whether an order was null or valid - whether it was regular or irregular. It held that they should come to the court and not take upon themselves to determine such a question. The following statement of law in the said decision was quoted by the Supreme Court:
"In Hadkinson v. Hadkinson, the Court of Appeal held:1
2019 SCC Online TS 1340
2 AKS,J C.C.No.49 of 2020 "It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or even void. Lord Cottenham, L.C., said in Chuck v. Cremer12 (at p. 342):
'A party, who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it.... It would be most dangerous to hold that the suitors, or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether an order was null or valid - whether it was regular or irregular. That they should come to the court and not take upon themselves to determine such a question. That the course of a party knowing of an order, which was null or irregular, and who might be affected by it, was plain. He should apply to the court that it might be discharged. As long as it existed it must not be disobeyed.' Such being the nature of this obligation, two consequences will, in general follow from its breach The first is that anyone who disobeys an order of the court (and I am not now considering disobedience of orders relating merely to matters of procedure) is in contempt and may be punished by committal or attachment or otherwise. The second is that no application to the court by such a person will be entertained until he has purged himself of his contempt." (emphasis supplied) He further contends that the respondents are liable for punishment as they have deliberately and wilfully violated the orders passed by this Court.
This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is the considered view that the issue raised in the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above is not applicable in the instant case because the respondents considered the
3 AKS,J C.C.No.49 of 2020 case of the petitioners by duly taking into account the Revenue Divisional Officer's report and the respondents have constituted a District Level Scrutiny Committee to examine the genuineness of the Local Scheduled Area Certificates of the petitioners and an opportunity was given to them and after considering all the issues, the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioners vide proceedings dt.19-12-2019.
In view of the same, when the orders passed by this Court have been complied with by considering the case of the petitioners, it does not amount to contempt. Accordingly, the Contempt case is closed. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to challenge the impugned rejection orders. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Date: 04-12-2020 kvr