Sri. T. S. Kaladhar Upadhyaya vs Smt. Kusuma Kumari, Kas on 30 September, 2022

[Cites 34, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. T. S. Kaladhar Upadhyaya vs Smt. Kusuma Kumari, Kas on 30 September, 2022

Bench: B.Veerappa

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

                           AND

         THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

               C.C.C.No.2104/2018 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN:

SRI T.S. KALADHAR UPADHYAYA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.R.

SRI LAKSHMINARAYAN UPADHYAYA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR's,

1.     SMT. ANUSUYA,
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
       W/O LAKSHMINARAYAN UPADHYAYA,
       OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       AND HOUSE HOLD WORK,
       R/O. KALASTAVADI SIDDALINGAPUR
       MYSORE DISTRICT.
       REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
       SRI VISHWANATH
       S/O. B.S. VENKATASHAMANNA
       AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
       R/O. NO.78/A GOVINDAPPA ROAD,
       BASAVANAGUDI
       BENGALURU - 4.

2.     SMT. GOURI RAMANATH
       AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
       W/O. K.S. RAMANATH
       R/O. C/O. GAYATHRI VISHWANATH

3.     SMT. GAYATHRI VISHWANATH
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
       W/O. B.S. VISHWANATH,
                            -2-

4.     SMT. BHARGAVI .S BABU
       AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
       W/O. S. BABU,

5.     SMT. URMILA SHIVARAM BHAT
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
       W/O. SUBRAMANYA BHAT,

6.     SMT. INDUKALA SHIVARAM
       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
       W/O. SHIVARAM UPADHYAYA,

       ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND ARE
       REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
       SMT. GAYATHRI VISHWANATH
       W/O. SRI B.S. VISHWANATH,
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
       OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSE HOLD WORK,
       R/O. NO.78/A, GOVINDAPPA ROAD,
       BASAVANAGUDI,
       BANGALORE - 1.                  ... COMPLAINANTS

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA I. SIMIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
COMPLAINANT Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6; SRI VEERESH BUDHIHAL,
ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT NO.3)

AND:

1.     SMT. KUSUMA KUMARI, KAS
       AGED MAJOR,
       OCC: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/SLAO/CHAIRMAN,
       R/O. NO.669/D,
       VENKATESHWARA NILAYA,
       OPP. TO DOOR NO.603,
       17TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR,
       IIIRD STAGE, MYSURU - 570 001
       DIST: MYSURU.

AS PER THE HON'BLE COURT
ORDER DATED 11.07.2019
ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 6 ARE DELETED.               ... ACCUSED

(BY SRI R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR A-1;
    SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE FOR A-2, A-3, A-4 AND A-5;
    A-6 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
                           -3-

     THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN
HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO
SECURE THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT AND
PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER 20.04.2018 AND 31.08.2018
MADE IN W.P.NO.261/2018 AND W.P.NO.4918-21/2018 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D
AND F, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS
ACT.

     THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 13/09/2022, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDERS THIS DAY, K.S. HEMALEKHA J., PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:

                     ORDER

The present contempt petition is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt Courts Act to punish the accused for the deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dated 20/04/2018 and 31/08/2018 in W.P.No.216/2018 and W.P.Nos.4198- 21/2018 whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the Land Tribunal to pass final order in the proceedings in KLR M 481, 915, 916, 3969- 3990/1974-75 on or before 15/09/2018. -4-

1. Facts:

The relevant facts which has lead to the filing of the present complaint is that:

a) Complainant claims to be a tenant of the land bearing Sy. No.239 of Kalasthavadi Village measuring 11 Acres 17 guntas (hereinafter referred to as the 'petition land') and legal heirs of deceased Kaladhar Upadhya.

b) According to the complainant one Siddaiah also claimed to be a rival tenant and filed application seeking occupancy rights in respect of the petition land and the Land Tribunal at the first instance had granted occupancy rights in favour of the said Siddaiah.

c) According to the complainant the said Kaladhar Upadhya who had also filed Form No.7 expired after filing Form No.7 and the said Siddaiah without making the legal heirs of the deceased Kaladhar Upadhya i.e., the complainant herein party -5- to the proceedings, had obtained the impugned order from the Tribunal against the dead person.

d) The complainant challenged the order of the Tribunal in W.P.No.36527/2009 connected with 14125/2008 and this Court by order dated 09/04/2012 allowed the writ petitions and remitted the matter back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

e) On remand, before the Land Tribunal the said Siddaiah claiming to be a rival tenant sought to produce certain documents, which were Xerox copy before the Tribunal and the Tribunal refused to mark the said documents by its order dated 06/12/2017.

the said Siddaiah aggrieved by the rejection to take the said documents had preferred W.P.No.261/2018 and W.P.No.4921/2018 before this Court and obtained an interim order of stay.

f) It is submitted in the complaint that the complainant were not made a party in -6- W.P.No.261/2018 and W.P.No.4921/2018 and hence, an application was filed for impleadment which was allowed by this Court and the complainant filed detailed statement of objections and also application seeking for vacating of interim order.

g) When W.P.No.261/2018 and W.P.No.4921/2018 were posted on 20/04/2018, the learned Single Judge after noticing that the matter before Tribunal was posted for orders on 07/03/2018 and that the interim order in WP was granted on 09/03/2018 staying the further proceedings and that the Land Tribunal was not in a position to dispose of the proceedings had vacated the interim order granted and directed the Land Tribunal, Mysuru by its Chairman, the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru District to pass final order in the proceedings.

h) Subsequently, the learned Single Judge on 31/08/2018 in W.P.No.216/2018 and W.P.Nos.4198- -7- 21/2018 this Court passed orders directing the Land Tribunal to pass orders on or before 15/09/2018.

i) According to the complainant the definition of "Tribunal" as per the land Tribunal Act consists of the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue Sub-Division and four other nominated members of the State Government.

j) According to the complainant though the order of the learned Single Judge was a direction to the Land Tribunal to pass orders on or before 15/09/2018 the Land Tribunal had not passed an order, though the learned HCGP in the said writ petitions filed a memo dated 17/09/2018 stating that the Land Tribunal has pronounced the order and the said submission of the learned HCGP was taken on record.

k) It is further contended by the complainant that the accused was chairman and others were the nominated members of the Land Tribunal and they -8- have to obey the orders of this Court and the order produced by the learned HCGP before the learned Single Judge, would indicate that the proceedings and the order passed on 22/03/2018 by the Land Tribunal the members were present and have participated in the Tribunal proceedings and have passed orders in different proceedings while they have not passed the orders in respect of the subject matter where the directions were issued by this Court.

l) According to the complainant the order dated 22/03/2018 produced by the learned HCGP in the above mentioned writ petition the nominated members who were present in the Land Tribunal have not signed the order dated 22/03/2018 and the said order is only signed by the Assistant Commissioner, who is the Chairman and the order passed cannot be an order in the eye of law and sought to punish the accused for deliberately and willfully disobeying the orders of this Court.

-9-

Pursuant to the notice ordered by this Court, the contemnor/accused appeared through their counsel and filed the reply statement by way of affidavit.

2. Accused No.1 filed her counter affidavits on the following dates:

(a) 1st counter affidavit dated 04/07/2019:

i) Accused No.1 is presently working as Special Land Acquisition Officer and she assumed the office of Special Land Acquision Officer, Kabini Project, Mysuru on 13/08/2015 and she is aware about the facts of the case.

ii) That at no point of time has willfully deliberately disobeyed the directions of this Hon'ble Court and tendered her unconditional apology for the unintentional non-compliance, if any and the delay caused in complying with the directions of this Hon'ble Court and has highest regards for the orders passed by this Court.

- 10 -

iii) It is submitted that as per the order passed in W.P.No.261/2018 and connected matters dated 31/08/2018 directing the Land Tribunal to pass orders on or before 15/09/2018 and as per the directions of this Court, she has followed the said directions.

iv) It is submitted that during her Chairmanship had held more than 45 to 50 hearings of all cases. The cases were listed regularly during the period 2016 to 27.03.2018, expect when the activities of the Land Tribunal were suspended from the date of declaration of election for State Assembly. The recording of the proceedings in all cases of the Land Tribunal, Mysuru were duly recorded by accused after ascertaining the quorum for the day. It is further submitted that the subsequent afterthought allegations were made in the present case are false. The Land Tribunal Members, nominated by Government of

- 11 -

Karnataka, have not made objections on the issue of the quorum either by writing or orally to the Member secretary.

v) It is further stated that regarding the Land Tribunal, Mysuru conducting the hearing of the case on 07.03.2018, the hearing was held after verification of quorum as per practice and recorded like all the other proceedings of the day in other listed and heard cases.

vi) It is further stated that the members of Tribunal are nominated vide Government of Karnataka Circular dated 01.08.2014 and 09.09.2015 respectively, based on their educational background, the Reservation Policy and political affiliation and not on their legal expertise. In the circumstance the Chairman has the onus and responsibility to draft the judgments taking into account all legal aspects and deliberations

- 12 -

between the members which are then signed by the Members.

vii) Accused No.1 had confirmed that on 22.03.2018, the Land Tribunal passed 3 orders. In the case No.KLRM 481/1974-75, KLRM-3539/1974-75, and in one more case, the Land Tribunal Members have signed in full without any remarks in two cases. Out of three, and for reasons best known to them, they deliberately withheld affixing their signatures in Case No.KLRM 481/1974-75 (in the present case Sri T.S.Upadhayaya V/s Sri Siddaiah S/o Sri Kariya) which has led to this contempt proceeding. It is also stated that the Tribunal Committee Members are individually and also collectively responsible for signing the judgment and orders as per the law and existing procedures and given the specific directions by the Hon'ble Court accused having done her part of the duty, there

- 13 -

is no willful and deliberate disobedience from accused.

viii) It is further stated that while passing the orders in all cases, deliberations were held, arguments were put forth and legally clarified for the consideration of all members and the orders are passed unanimously in all cases including in KLRM 481/1974-75 of late T.S.Upadhayaya by his LRs V/s Sri Siddaiah S/o. Sri Kariya. The consent of members were obtained on 22.03.2018 and recorded as pronounced in accordance with law.

ix) It is further stated that the order singed by accused No.1 remains pending at Tahsildar's office for want of signatures of the members of the Tribunal for the reasons 'not specified nor recorded'. The Contempt Petition is applicable to this willfully not signing part of the order by the members of the Land Tribunal.

- 14 -

x) It is further stated that the Land Tribunal Members have violated the provisions of the law by bringing caste and political influences and sharing the proceedings of the cases to press, public, thus have improperly conducted themselves, which is not expected of members of Land Tribunal, Mysore apart from these afterthought baseless allegations against accused No.1 and also they have lowered the dignity and decorum of the Land Tribunal.

xi) It is further stated that as per the directions of this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.261/2018 c/w W.P.Nos.4918-21/2018 the Secretary of Land Tribunal, Mysore with the consent of accused No.1, posted for hearing Case No.KLRM 481/1974-75 (Late T.S.K. Upadhyaya by his LRs vs. Sri Siddaiah bin Kariyya) on 12.09.2018. The four members of the Land Tribunal have boycotted the hearing and choose to remain

- 15 -

absent for the reasons best known to them. This matter has been duly recorded in the presence of Member Secretary/Tahsildar, Mysore and as per the advice of the learned HCGP in the Writ Petition No.261/2018 c/w W.P.Nos.4918- 21/2018 the memo with partially passed order dated 23.03.2018 was submitted at this Hon'ble court on 20.09.2019 along with a daily recording of the proceedings from 03.01.2018 to 12.09.2018. It is further stated that recording on 12.09.2019 by accused No.1 is true and in accordance with law. Hence, accused No.1 submits that order pronounced by her in this case is in accordance with law and in furtherance of justice.

xii) It is further stated that the submission made by the members of the Land Tribunal before this Court on 21.05.2019 is false in totality, for the reason that on 21.05.2019, accused No.1 did not

- 16 -

host the Tribunal Meeting nor was present at the meeting. They have suomoto held their meeting at an place not know to me.

xiii) It is further stated that the noting dated 21.05.2019 submitted on record are not put up by accused No.1 and all allegations against accused No.1 is not true. The contempt proceeding is for non compliance of this Hon'ble High Court order dated 31.08.2018 and last Tribunal hearing held on 12.09.2018 as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court to pass the orders. The submission made on 21.05.2019 by the members of the Land Tribunal, there opinion and not part of the lawful order.

(underlining by us)

(b) 2nd affidavit dated 24/09/2019 by accused:

i) The present contempt case is filed by the Petitioners alleging disobedience of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 31.08.2018

- 17 -

in Writ Petition No.261/2018 c/w W.P.Nos.4918- 21/2018 by which this Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the Land Tribunal, Mysuru to pass an order on or before 15.09.2018.

ii) It is further stated by accused No.1 that despite the same in compliance of the said orders and being the Chairman of the erstwhile Land Tribunal, Mysuru, accused No.1 had called for a meeting through the Tahsildar, Mysuru, who happens to be Ex-officio Member Secretary of the Tribunal, on 12.09.2018 between 3:00 p.m. to 4:00. Further, on the said day the other Members of the Tribunal have not attend the meeting and hence the orders could not be passed as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court dated 31.08.2018.

iii) It is stated that accused No.1 being a law abiding citizen and a public servant and have been discharging her duties in accordance with

- 18 -

law and further stated that she has neither intentionally nor otherwise has committed contempt of any orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. It is further stated that she always obey the orders and more particularly order of this Hon'ble Court without any scope for disobedience.

iv) Therefore, accused No.1 submits that she has not committed any willful disobedience of lawful order of this Hon'ble Court and most respectfully beg before this Hon'ble Court that in the light of the above submission this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to absolve accused No.1 from the present Contempt proceedings.

(underlining by us)

i) Accused No.1 seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the statement made her with regard to the compliance of the order dated 31.08.2018

- 19 -

passed by this Court in W.P.No.261/2018 c/w W.P.Nos.4918-21/2018 stating that the said order is complied with and such statement was made on the wrong advice. It is further stated that since accused No.1 signed the order within the date stipulated by this Court, but the other members of the Tribunal have not signed the order and therefore, it cannot be construed as the order of the Tribunal and thus the statement made by the accused No.1 regarding compliance of the order is incorrect.

ii) Having realized that there is a technical mistake in reporting compliance of the order, accused No.1 seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the said statement.

iii) It is further stated that in fact in the additional affidavit filed by accused No.1 before this Hon'ble Court, she sought for unconditional apology and requested for discharge from the

- 20 -

case and seeks unconditional apology for the mistake committed by accused in reporting compliance of the order though the order is not signed by all the members of the Tribunal except her.

iv) I submit that the mistake that is committed by accused is not intentional and I have got greatest respect for the orders of the court.

(underlining by us)

(d) 4th Affidavit dated 24/01/2022 filed by the accused:

i) It is submitted that there is a mistake on her part in stating that the order dated 31/08/2018 passed by this Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in W.P.No.261/2018 c/w W.P.Nos.4918-21/2018 is complied with, though the order of the land tribunal, Mysore, is signed by accused only as chairman of the land tribunal, though the other members of the land tribunal have not signed the same.

- 21 -

ii) Accused seeks unconditional apology and the same may kindly be accepted and this Hon'ble Court be pleased to drop the above proceedings against her, in the interest of justice and equity.

iii) It is further submitted that the mistake committed by her is unintentional and she has got highest regard for the orders of this Hon'ble Court.

(underlining by us)

3. This Court vide order dated 11/07/2019 has dismissed the complaint as against accused Nos.2 to 6 and the said order has been attained finality. However, the statement of accused Nos.2 to 6 are referred below as the same are relevant.

(a) Accused No.2 filed reply statement by way of affidavit on 24/06/2019 stating that:

i) It was never the intention of nominated members including accused No.2 to remain out of the proceedings of the Tribunal in the subject

- 22 -

proceedings. Infact, since the Tribunal proceedings were not being regularly held, the accused have requested the Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru to issue necessary directions for holding the Tribunal meetings by duly notifying the nominated members about the same. The representation dated 03.08.2018 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District in this regard is produced as Annexure-R1.

- 23 -

Secretary, Mysuru Land Tribunal, Mysuru has sought for necessary directions for holding the meetings of the Land Tribunal. The copy of the said letter dated 22.12.2018 is herewith produced as Annexure-R3. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District has addressed a letter dated 17.01.2019 to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Reforms) seeking clarifications if the meeting could be held at the Land Tribunal. The copy of the said letter dated 17.01.2019 is herewith produced as Annexure-R4. Thus, meetings at the Land Tribunal, Mysuru were not being convened by duly issuing notices to nominated members.

iii) It is further stated that in the said background, in so far as the subject order is concerned the same has been passed on 12.09.2018 by accused No.1 unilaterally in her chamber without

- 24 -

any bringing to the notice or taking opinion of the accused Nos.2 to 5. It is relevant to point that although accused No.1 contends that the nominated members were not present in the meeting, she has stated in the operative portion of the order that the said order is passed unanimously without even mentioning the date of pronouncement of order. This clearly shows the inconsistent stand of accused No.1. It is further pointed out that in the case sheet, there is no reference to any mention of holding a meeting on 22.03.2018 to substantiate the case of accused No.1 that proceedings were held on 22.03.2018. On the other hand in another proceedings referred to by the complainant, it can be noticed that the very same accused No.1 has mentioned the date of pronouncement of order and also mentioning that pronouncement was done in the open court. Accused No.2 to 5

- 25 -

participated in the said meeting as they were duly informed about the same. However, in the instant case they were not informed about the meeting at all. Thus, under the said circumstances, accused Nos.2 to 5 could not be part of the order in respect of the matters where directions were issued by this Hon'ble Court. Further when a notice dated 20.05.2019 was issued to the accused calling upon them to express their opinion about the subject order, they have taken objection to the unilateral order passed by the accused without any notice to them. The copies of the notice dated 20.05.2019 and the opinion expressed by the accused is herewith produced as Annexures-R5 and R6.

iv) Hence, in the light of the above, there is no willful disobedience to the order of the learned single judge and the complainant is not justified

- 26 -

in alleging willful disobedience in so far as the accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned.

(underlining by us)

(b) Accused No.3 filed reply statement by way of affidavit on 24/06/2019 stating that:

i) It was never the intention of nominated members including accused No.3 to remain out of the proceedings of the Tribunal in the subject proceedings. Infact, since the Tribunal proceedings were not being regularly held, the accused have requested the Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru to issue necessary directions for holding the Tribunal meetings by duly notifying the nominated members about the same. The representation dated 03.08.2018 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District in this regard is produced as Annexure-R1.

ii) In pursuance of the said representation, the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District has

- 27 -

addressed a letter dated 14.08.2018 to the Tahsildar and Secretary, Mysuru Land Tribunal, Mysuru thereby directing him to take necessary action regarding holding of the meetings. The copy of the said letter dated 14.08.2018 is herewith produced as Annexure-R2. Later vide his letter dated 22.12.2018, the Tahsildar and Secretary, Mysuru Land Tribunal, Mysuru has sought for necessary directions for holding the meetings of the Land Tribunal. The copy of the said letter dated 22.12.2018 is produced as Annexure-R3. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District has addressed a letter dated 17.01.2019 to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Reforms) seeking clarifications if the meeting could be held at the Land Tribunal. The copy of the said letter dated 17.01.2019 is h produced as Annexure- R4. Thus, meetings at the Land Tribunal,

- 28 -

Mysuru were not being convened by duly issuing notices to nominated members.

iii) It is further stated that in the said background, insofar as the subject order is concerned the same has been passed on 12.09.2018 by Accused No.1 unilaterally in her chamber without any bringing to the notice or taking opinion of accused Nos.2 to 5. It is relevant to point that although accused No.1 contends that the nominated members were not present in the meeting, she has stated in the operative portion of the order that the said order is passed unanimously without even mentioning the date of pronouncement of order. This clearly shows the inconsistent stand of accused No.1. It is further pointed out that in the case sheet, there is no reference to any mention of holding a meeting on 22.03.2018 to substantiate the case of accused No.1 that proceedings were held on

- 29 -

22.03.2018. On the other hand in another proceedings referred to by the complainant, it can be noticed that the very same accused No.1 has mentioned the date of pronouncement of order and also mentioning that pronouncement was done in the open court. Accused No.2 to 5 participated in the said meeting as they were duly informed about the same. However, in the instant case they were not informed about the meeting at all. Thus, under the said circumstances, accused Nos.2 to 5 could not be part of the order in respect of the matters where directions were issued by this Hon'ble Court. Further when a notice dated 20.05.2019 was issued to the accused calling upon them to express their opinion about the subject order, they have taken objection to the unilateral order passed by the accused without any notice to them. The copies of the notice dated 20.05.2019

- 30 -

and the opinion expressed by the accused is herewith produced as Annexures-R5 and R6.

iv) Hence, in the light of the above, there is no willful disobedience to the order of the learned single judge and the complainant is not justified in alleging willful disobedience in so far as the accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned.

(underlining by us)

i) It was never the intention of nominated members including accused No.4 to remain out of the proceedings of the Tribunal in the subject proceedings. Since the Tribunal proceedings were not being regularly held, the accused persons have requested the Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru to issue necessary directions for holding the Tribunal meetings by duly notifying the nominated members about the same. The

- 31 -

representation dated 03.08.2018 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District in this regard is produced as Annexure-R1.

ii) In pursuance of the said representation, the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District has addressed a letter dated 14.08.2018 to the Tahsildar and Secretary, Mysuru Land Tribunal, Mysuru thereby directing him to take necessary action regarding holding of the meetings. The copy of the said letter dated 14.08.2018 is produced as Annexure-R2. Therafter, vide letter dated 22.12.2018, the Tahsildar and Secretary, Mysuru Land Tribunal, Mysuru has sought for necessary directions for holding the meetings of the Land Tribunal. The copy of the said letter dated 22.12.2018 is herewith produced as Annexure-R3. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District has addressed a letter dated 17.01.2019 to the

- 32 -

Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Reforms) seeking clarifications if the meeting could be held at the Land Tribunal. The copy of the said letter dated 17.01.2019 is produced as Annexure-R4. Thus, meetings at the Land Tribunal, Mysuru were not being convened by duly issuing notices to nominated members.

iii) It is stated that in the said background, insofar as the subject order is concerned the same has been passed on 12.09.2018 by Accused No.1 unilaterally in her chamber without any bringing to the notice or taking opinion of accused Nos.2 to 5. It is relevant to point that although accused No.1 contends that the nominated members were not present in the meeting, she has stated in the operative portion of the order that the said order is passed unanimously without even mentioning the date of pronouncement of order. This clearly shows the

- 33 -

inconsistent stand of accused No.1. It is further pointed out that in the case sheet, there is no reference to any mention of holding a meeting on 22.03.2018 to substantiate the case of accused No.1 that proceedings were held on 22.03.2018. On the other hand in another proceedings referred to by the complainant, it can be noticed that the very same accused No.1 has mentioned the date of pronouncement of order and also mentioning that pronouncement was done in the open court. Accused No.2 to 5 participated in the said meeting as they were duly informed about the same. However, in the instant case they were not informed about the meeting at all. Thus, under the said circumstances, accused Nos.2 to 5 could not be part of the order in respect of the matters where directions were issued by this Hon'ble Court. Further when a notice dated 20.05.2019 was

- 34 -

issued to the accused calling upon them to express their opinion about the subject order, they have taken objection to the unilateral order passed by the accused without any notice to them. The copies of the notice dated 20.05.2019 and the opinion expressed by the accused is herewith produced as Annexures-R5 and R6.

(underlining by us)

(d) Accused No.5 filed reply statement by way of affidavit on 24/06/2019 stating that:

i) It was never the intention of nominated members including accused No.5 to remain out of the proceedings of the Tribunal in the subject proceedings. Since the Tribunal proceedings

- 35 -

were not being regularly held, the accused persons have requested the Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru to issue necessary directions for holding the Tribunal meetings by duly notifying the nominated members about the same. The copy of the representation dated 03.08.2018 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District is produced as Annexure-R1.

- 36 -

Mysuru has sought for necessary directions for holding the meetings of the Land Tribunal. The copy of the said letter dated 22.12.2018 is herewith produced as Annexure-R3. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District has addressed a letter dated 17.01.2019 to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Reforms) seeking clarifications if the meeting could be held at the Land Tribunal. The copy of the said letter dated 17.01.2019 is herewith produced as Annexure-R4. Thus, meetings at the Land Tribunal, Mysuru were not being convened by duly issuing notices to nominated members.

- 37 -

accused Nos.2 to 5. It is relevant to point that although accused No.1 contends that the nominated members were not present in the meeting, she has stated in the operative portion of the order that the said order is passed unanimously without even mentioning the date of pronouncement of order. This clearly shows the inconsistent stand of accused No.1 and it is further pointed out in the case sheet that there is no reference to any mention of holding a meeting on 22.03.2018 to substantiate the case of e accused No.1 that proceedings were held on 22.03.2018. On the other hand, in another proceedings referred to by the complainant, it can be noticed that the very same accused No.1 has mentioned the date of pronouncement of order and also mentioning that pronouncement was done in the open court. Accused No.2 to 5 have participated in the said meeting as they

- 38 -

were duly informed about the same. However, in the instant case they were not informed about the meeting at all. Thus, under the said circumstances, accused Nos.2 to 5 could not be part of the order in respect of the matters where directions were issued by this Hon'ble Court and further when a notice dated 20.05.2019 was issued to the accused calling upon them to express their opinion about the subject order, they have taken objection to the unilateral order passed by the accused without any notice to them. The copies of the notice dated 20.05.2019 and the opinion expressed by the accused is herewith produced as Annexures-R5 and R6.

iv) Hence, in the light of the above, there is no willful disobedience to the order of the learned single judge and the complainant is not justified

- 39 -

in alleging willful disobedience in so far as the accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned.

The sum and substance of the affidavit of accused Nos.2 to 5 are same and replica of each other.

(e) Accused No.6 filed reply statement by way of affidavit on 09/07/2019 stating that:

i) It is submitted that the Complaint is filed by the Petitioner alleging disobedience of the orders dated 20.04.2018, 10.08.2018, 21.08.2018 and 31.08.2018 respectively passed in W.P.No.261/2018 in the case of Sri Siddaiah S/o. Kariya V/s State of Karnataka and others (KRM 481/1974). I submit that as per this Hon'ble High Court order in W.P.No.261/2018 RW 4918 to 21 (LR) dated 31.08.2018 which states as follows: 'In the circumstances, the Land Tribunal shall pass orders on or before 15.09.2018. It is clear that the State shall not

- 40 -

take steps to reconstitute the Tribunal and till order is past in this matter and in any other matters where orders are reserved by the concerned Tribunal/Respondent. List on 18.09.2018.

ii) It is submitted that in the case No.KLRM-

481/1974 late T.S.K. Upadhyaya by his LRs. V/s Sri Siddaiah S/o Sri Kariya, I have followed the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directions gives in W.P.No.2204-240/1974, W.P.Nos.36257/2019 c/w 14125/2008 (LR) W.P.Nos.261/2018 c/w 4918-921/2018 (LR-RES) and in its orders pronounced on several days and the accused also aware of the Government of Karnataka Circular No.Ka.E.Suthole-266 dated 19.12.2016, regarding expeditious closure of LRF cases pending in Land Tribunals.

iii) It is submitted that Tahsildar, Mysuru is the Secretary of Land Tribunal, Mysuru. Accused

- 41 -

No.6 is the Secretary and the custodian of all Land Tribunal Records and all hearings were conducted at my Taluk office premises on the direction of Chairman, Land Tribunal. Notices to applicants and respondent in cases from my Office. The Members When appointed as members by the State Government have to attend meetings. Thereafter, on subsequent dated the Caseworker has been communicating to members over telephone for attending the meeting and proceedings. The clerical staff for the Tribunal are provided from my office to record all proceedings to issue notice of meetings.

iii) It is further submitted that Section 48 A of the Land Reforms Act 1961, defines the powers of the Secretary of the Land Tribunal. The duties of the Tahsildar as per Section 112(A) of the

- 42 -

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 are as specified below:

(a) to decide a dispute between the landlord and the tenant regarding the rent payable under sub-section 9;

(b) to determine the compensation payable to a tenant under Section 11;

(c) to declare the vesting in the State Government of the lands referred to in sub-

section (6) of section 15 or section 20;

(d) not to order restoration of possession to the landlord on the tenant paying the arrears of rent together with the cost of proceeding under Section 23;

(e) to determine compensation for trees payable under Section 27;

(f) to order recovery of costs incurred on bunds and costs of proceedings under sub- section (2) of Section 30;

- 43 -

(g) to grant certificate under sub-section (2) of Section 37;

(h) to determine the reasonable price of land under sub-section (2) of Section 39;

(i) to pass orders on application for possession under sub-section (3) of Section (3) of Section 39;

(j) to order forfeiture of crops and payment of costs and penalty under sub-section (4) of Section 41;

(k) to hold an enquiry and pass orders in cases relating to recovery of rent under Section 42;

(l) to determine the amount payable under Section 47 and also to prepare a Statement of distribution of the amount under Section 48-B;

(m) to determine the encumbrances ans arrange payment of amount under Section 50;

- 44 -

(n) to issue a certificate, 1[X X X X X] Under Section 55;

(o) to order forfeiture of the right, title and interest of a person in the land under sub- section (2) of Section 58;

(p) to condone failure to cultivate personally under Section 60;

(q) to pass order imposing penalty under Section 66-A;

2[(r) X X X X X;] omitted.

(s) to determine the compensation under Section 71;

(t) to pass order imposing penalty and requiring a person to furnish a true and correct declaration under sub-section (2) of Section 79- C;

(u) to perform such other duties and functions as are imposed on the Tahsildar, by any other provision of this Act or under any rule

- 45 -

made thereunder. Further I submit that, as per Section 112 (B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961, it is the duty of the Land Tribunal headed by Chairman. The Accused No.1 being the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kabani Reservoir Project -2, Mysuru is to make necessary verification or hold an enquiry [including local inspection] and pass orders in cases relating to registration of a tenant as occupant under Section 48-A.

iv) It is submitted that in respect of the allegations made in respect of proceedings of the Land Tribunal, Mysuru conducting the hearing of this case on 07.03.2018 and the hearing was held after verification of quorum as per practice and recorded like all the other proceedings of listed cases for the day. The Land Tribunal Members herein being Accused Nos.2 to 5, have not made objections on the issue of the quorum either by

- 46 -

writing or orally to accused No.6 as the Secretary of the Tribunal and submitted that the allegation of Accused Nos.2 to 5 regarding the Land Tribunal, Mysuru conducting the hearing of this case on 07.03.2018 is an afterthought and factually incorrect. It is further submitted that the noting dated 21.05.2019 are not before accused No.6 and accused No.6 was the Tahsildar Madugiri Taluk Tumkur District during the said period.

(underlining by us)

4. Rejoinder dated 10/10/2019 filed by the complainant to the counter affidavits filed by accused No.1 dated 04/07/2019 and 24/09/2019 stating that:

i) Accused No.1 has entered appearance and has filed Counter Affidavit dated 4-7-2019 and in the said Affidavit she has categorically given many admissions and has also admitted that there were recording of the proceedings from

- 47 -

3/1/2018 to 12/9/2018 and has also stated that the contempt petition is applicable to the 4 Tribunal members since the said members did not sign the order. She has also categorically stated at para 12 that Land Tribunal members are responsible for violation by bringing caste and political influences and also for sharing the proceedings of the cases to press, public and that the Tribunal members have improperly conducted themselves. Having said so in her Counter Affidavit dated 4-7-2019, the Accused No.1 files another Affidavit on 24-9-2019 and in the said second Affidavit she has stated that the Land Tribunal, Mysuru was not functioning and the same has not been constituted. This statement is contrary to the contentions urged in the earlier Affidavit.

ii) It is submitted that the Accused No.1 has also dared and made a statement at paragraph 5 of

- 48 -

the Affidavit dated 24-9-2019 stating that the order dated 31-8-2018 passed by this Hon'ble court was not enforceable. This very fact stating that the orders of this Hon'ble court are not enforceable itself would amount to contempt. The Accused No.1 has taken the orders of the court for granted and has filed the Affidavit stating that the orders of the court are not enforceable."

5. Learned Additional Government filed memo 27/07/2019 stating that:

"The counsel for the Accused encloses herewith the copy of the opinion along with signatures of the Members of the Land Tribunal dated 21.05.2019, in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 31.08.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.261/2018 and 6918- 21/2018 [LR], for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

Therefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take the same on record and drop

- 49 -

the Contempt Proceedings initiated against the Accused, in the interest of Justice."

6. This Court on various dates passed various orders and posted the matter on 16.12.2021 to hear before charge. Subsequently, on 02.06.2022, the charge of accused No.1 was framed and evidence of the complainant No.3 was recorded and matter is heard on merits of the contempt petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

Contentions of the complainants:

8. Sri Veeresh Budhihal, learned counsel for the complainants would vehemently canvass that the accused have willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 20/04/2018 and 31/08/2018, passed in W.P.No.261/2018 (LRS) C/w. W.P.Nos.4918- 4921/2018, wherein the learned single Judge has specifically directed Tribunal to pass the final orders in

- 50 -

the proceedings relating to the subject matter in the writ petition on or before 15/09/2018. It is further contended that the learned High Court Government Pleader ("HCGP") had filed a memo dated 17/09/2018 in the said writ petitions stating that the Tribunal has conducted proceedings on 12/09/2018 wherein final orders in the proceedings has been passed and also proceedings of the order sheet have been produced and mentioned in the memo that order has been pronounced. The certified copy of the order sheet is produced by the learned HCGP (Annexure-G) stating that along with the order copy wherein the order passed by the Land Tribunal is dated 22/03/2018 and signed by the Chairman, who is accused No.1 and another order in a different proceeding before the Tribunal according to the learned counsel for the complainants is that as per Annexure - L, all the members including accused No.1 have signed the order on 22/03/2018. According to the learned

- 51 -

counsel for the complainants, accused No.1 i.e., the Assistant Commissioner and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kabini-2, Mysore, have only passed the order and the other members have not passed any order for the reasons best known to them. According to the learned counsel, the order sheet of the Tribunal dated 12/09/2018 would clearly show that the order of this Court has been deliberately disobeyed and the order dated 12/09/2018 cannot be construed as the order of the Tribunal in view of the non-signing by the other members constituted under the provisions of the Act and thus sought to punish the accused for willfully disobeying the orders of this Court. Learned counsel for the complainants has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Crl.A.No.188/2009 dated 12/05/2010 in the matter of Ranveer Yadav vs. State of Bihar, (Crl.A.No.188/2009 dated 12/05/2010) (Ranveer Yadav) para Nos.27, 28 and 29.

- 52 -

(ii) Relevant portion of the order dated 13/01/2022 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CCC.560/2021 in the case of Sri Maranna vs. Smt. Dhanalakshmi, [C.C.C.No.560/2021 (Civil) dated on 24/02/2022] (Maranna).

(iii) The judgment of the High Court of Hyderabad in the case of K.Mallaiah and others vs. Sandeep Kumar Sultania and others, [2016 Crl.L J 968] (Mallaiah).

(iv) The judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in CCC No.1915/2018 in the matter of Archana Jawaharlal vs. Awasthy & The District Educational Officer, Karimnagar, (Contempt Case No.1915/2018 dated 29/08/2022) (Archana Jawaharlal)

(v) The judgment of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in CCC No.1034/2021 in the matter of Veldanda Srilatha vs. Gundmalla Anantha Reddy

- 53 -

(Contempt Case No.1034/2021 dated 29/04/2022) (Veldanda Srilatha). Contentions of the accused No.1:

9. Per contra, Sri R.B. Sadashivappa, learned counsel for accused No.1 vehemently contended that accused No.1 has passed the order as directed by this court on 30/04/2018 to pass the orders on or before 15/09/2018 and accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner who was the Chairman of the Land Tribunal has signed the judgment and stated that at no point of the accused No.1 has disobeyed the directions issued by this Court willfully or intentionally and has tendered her unconditional apology and it is the contention of the learned counsel for accused No.1 that the Land Tribunal, Mysore, during her Chairmanship has held more than 40 to 50 hearings and the case listed regularly was during the period of 2016 to 2018 and the accused/Land Tribunal members who were nominated by the Government of

- 54 -

Karnataka have not made objections on the issue of quorum either by writing or orally to the member secretary. It is the specific contention of accused No.1 that the Tribunal Committee members are individually and also collectively responsible for signing the judgments and orders as per law and the existing procedures given specific directions given by this Court, accused No.1 has done her part of duty and there is no willful deliberate disobedience on her part. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Members of the Land Tribunal have violated the provisions of law by not signing the order for the reasons not specified nor recorded and the orders signed by accused No.1 remained pending in the Tahsildar's office for want of the other four members to be signed and the contempt petition is applicable to the willful non-signing part of the order and hence, would submit that she has not willfully disobeyed the order of this Court. It is submitted that on 12/09/2018

- 55 -

when the order was passed, the four Members of the Land Tribunal had boycotted the hearing and chose to remain absent for the reasons best known to them and thus the non-signing of the Tribunal's order by the other four members would not make the order which is duly signed by accused No.1 and no willful and deliberate action on the part of accused No.1 and sought to drop the proceedings against accused No.1 as she has not lowered the dignity and decorum of the Court nor she has willfully disobeyed any order of this Court and sought unconditional apology. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the following judgments:

(i) Dinabandhu Sahu vs. The State of Orissa [1972(4)SCC 761] (Dinabandhu Sahu) para No.2;

(ii) B.K. Kar vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his companion Justices of the Orissa High

- 56 -

Court and Another, (AIR 1961 SC 1367) (B.K. Kar) para No.7;


(iii)   Anuj    Maheshwari          vs.      Ramesh       Yadav    &

        another     [AIR      1997           SC    2555]     (Anuj

        Maheshwari) para 6;

(iv)    High    Court    of   Karnataka            Rep.     by    the

Registrar General vs. Sri G.N.Shivakumar and others [ILR 2020 Kar. 2409];

(v) V.Gururaj vs. Sri Sri Vidya Shreesha Theertharu @ Sri D.Prahaladachar (claiming to be 41st Peethadhipathy) [2021 (2) Kar. L.J. 511 (DB)];

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the complainants have made out a case for initiation of contempt proceeding under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act against accused No.1 stating that she has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the

- 57 -


     order    dated      20/04/2018       and    31/08/2018,
     passed         in        W.P.No.261/2018             C/w

W.P.Nos.4918-4921/2018 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case?"

Consideration:

11. Before adverting to the facts, the relevant provisions of Contempt of Courts Act are, Section 2(a) of the Contempt Courts Act, 1971, defines the Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt. Section 2(b) defines Civil Contempt as under:

"2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) "contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt;

(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court."

Section 12 of the Contempt Courts Act provides for punishment, which reads as under:

"12. Punishment for contempt of court.-(1) Save as otherwise expressly

- 58 -

provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:

Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.

Explanation.--An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple

- 59 -

imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.

(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the

- 60 -

consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.

Explanation.--For the purpose of sub- sections (4) and (5),--

(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and

(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm."

12. According to the complainant, the accused has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order passed by this Court dated 20/04/2018 and 31/08/2018 in W.P.Nos.261/2018 and 4918- 4921/2018 and the pleadings reveal that the main grievance of the complainant, inspite of

- 61 -

communication of the order stated above, the nominated members of the Tribunal have not discharged their duties and that the Assistant Commissioner, who is the Chairman of the Land Tribunal as per the order sheet dated 12/09/2018 has observed that the Members of the Land Tribunal have not signed the order though the Chairman and Tahsildar waited for members and thus there is clear willful disobedience of the order this Court dated 20/04/2018 and 31/08/2018 where positive directions to pass orders by the Land Tribunal was ordered relevant paras of the complaint are as under:

"11. It is submitted that the nominated members of the Tribunal i.e., the Accused herein are discharging their duties by occupying the public office and therefore are duty bound to obey the directions issued by this Hon'ble court. This Hon'ble court by order dated 20-4-2018 and 31-8-2018 have issued directions twice to the Tribunal to pass the orders. But however the Accused have not

- 62 -

complied the same and have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions issued by this Hon'ble court and therefore are liable to be punished for contempt of court.

12. It is submitted that the complainants by communication dated 7-5- 2018 have communicated the orders passed by this Hon'ble court to the Tribunal and therefore the Tribunal is duty bound to obey the directions issued by this Hon'ble court. But however till date there is no compliance of the directions issued by this Hon'ble court.

13. It is submitted that the Accused herein for the reasons best known to them for extraneous reasons have not passed the orders and have not obeyed the directions. In fact on 20-4-2018 this Hon'ble court was pleased to issue directions to pass the orders as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. Since the same was not obeyed this Hon'ble court again on 31-8-2018 was pleased to issue directions to pass the orders by fixing the time frame and directed to pass the orders on or before 15-9-2018. Hence there was ample time granted to pass the orders. Both are positive directions issued to pass the

- 63 -

orders and both have been deliberately and willfully disobeyed which amounts to contempt of court.

14. It is submitted that the learned Assistant Commissioner who is the chairman of the Land Tribunal in her order sheet dated 12- 9-2018 has clearly observed that the Tribunal members have not passed the orders though they were awaited to pass the orders. This clearly establishes the fact that the Accused had clear and deliberate intentions to disobey the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. Hence this petition."

13. Notice to the contemnor/accused was issued and on appearance, accused No.1 filed counter affidavit tendering her unconditional apology for the unintentional non-compliance of the order of this Court and specifically stated that on 07/03/2018, the Land Tribunal, Mysuru in KLRM 481-564/1974-75 held the proceeding and the matter was reserved for orders and accused No.1 passed an order on 22/03/2018 in the case and other two matters. The

- 64 -

Tribunal members though consented for passing orders on 22/03/2018 as stated in the order produced at Annexure - H, the same was not signed by the members of the Tribunal (Accused Nos.1 to 5) and in pursuance of the order of this Court, quorum was called and proceedings were conducted on 12/09/2018 and the proceedings reveal that accused No.1 was awaiting the signature of accused Nos.2 to 5 (Members of the Tribunal).

14. Though accused Nos.2 to 5 took a stand that they were unaware about the meeting or proceedings to be conducted on 12/09/2018, it would be appropriate to state here that accused Nos.2 to 5 were aware that on 07/03/2008, the matter was reserved for orders and the order dated 22/03/2018 was passed with the consent of all the Members of the Tribunal as is evident from Annexure - H. The operative portion of the order/last para of the order reads as under:

- 65 -

"DzÉ DzÉÃ±À Cfð ²æÃ n.J¸ï. PÀ¯ÁzÀgÀ G¥ÀzÁåAiÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÈ¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÇÃ§½, PÀ¼À¸ÀÛªÁr UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀÄ 239 gÀ ºÀ£ÉÆßAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ¢£ÉÃ¼ÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ (11.17) d«ÄÃ¤£À UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ¤£À C¢ü ¨ÉÆÃUÀzÁjPÉ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÉAzÀÄ F ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ ¸ÀªÁð£ÀÄªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wÃªÀiÁð¤¹zÉ. "

"ORDER The applicant Sri T.S.Kaladhara Upadhyaya, for Mysore taluk, Kasaaba Hobli , Kalasthawadi village in Survey No.239, eleven (11) acres and seventeen(17) guntas (11-17) lands is the tenant and further he is entitled to the titles to this property under tenancy rights and confirmed on him by the land tribunal with full consent of all members."

15. The non-signing part by accused Nos.2 to 5

is the real controversy in this matter, as the complainant has also specifically stated in her complaint that accused Nos.2 to 5 - Members of the Tribunal have not signed the order as directed by this Court vide orders dated 20/04/2018 and 31/08/2018

- 66 -

and the contention of accused Nos.2 to 5 that the proceedings were not conducted by the Tribunal on 12/09/2018 would falsify their statement as accused No.6-the Tahsildar has filed affidavit on 09/07/2019 stated supra.

16. The perusal of the affidavit of Ramesh Babu who was working as a Tahsildar at the relevant point of time at para Nos.5 and 7 has specifically stated that the proceedings were conducted on 07/03/2018 and 12/09/2018 in KLRM 481/74-75 and for want of signature of accused Nos.2 to 5 the proceedings were stalled. According to the accused, the memo filed on 27/05/2019 by the Additional Government Advocate in this contempt proceeding a note written on 21/05/2019 on the overleaf of the order in KLRM 481/75-75 dated 22/03/2019 is not the notings before him. The said noting on overleaf of the order dated 21/05/2019 reads as under:

- 67 -

"¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄUÀ¼À C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀB 07/03/2018 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉ¸À¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ ªÉÄå¸ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¸À¨És UÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ°è M§âgÁzÀ ²æÃ aPÀÌuÉÚÃUËqÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÁdjzÀÄÝ, ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¸À¨sÉ £ÀqÉ¸À®Ä §ºÀÅªÀÄvÀ E®èzÉÃ ºÉÇÃzÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ GzÉÝÃ±À ¥ÀÇªÀðPÀªÁV ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ PÉÊUÉwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ ¨ÁgÀzÉ EgÀÄªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è CAwªÀÄ DzÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ PÁ¬ÄÝj¹zÀÄÝ, CAwªÀÄ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¢£ÁAPÀB 22-03-2018 gÀAzÀÄ KPÀ ¥ÀQëAiÀÄªÁV ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉÃ DzÉÃ±À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅ£Àgï ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀB 22-03-2018 gÀAzÀÄ ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ CzsÀåPÀë KPÀ ¥ÀQëAiÀÄªÁV ºÉÇgÀr¹gÀÄªÀ DzÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄäw EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è."

17. The affidavit filed by accused No.6 becomes clear that the proceedings were conducted on 07/03/2018 and 12/09/2018 and the stand taken by accused Nos.2 to 5 does not get the confidence of this Court.

- 68 -

18. Coming to the orders by this Court in this contempt petition, this Court on 11/07/2018 passed the following:

"Heard learned counsels.

Accused Nos.1 to 6 are present in the Court.

On perusal of the affidavits filed by the respective accused, we do not find any ground to proceed further, so far as accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned. Accused Nos.2 to 6 are deleted from this proceeding.

Learned counsel for the complainants' to amend the cause title.

The grievance of accused No.1 which she reiterates is that, she has complied with the orders of this Court. But, the same cannot be construed as compliance with only her signature.

Call next week for framing charges against accused No.1."

19. As it is clear from the order of this Court on 11/07/2018, accused Nos.2 to 6 were deleted from the array of the accused in this proceeding. I.A.No.1/2020 came to be filed by accused No.1 for

- 69 -

recalling the order deleting accused Nos.2 to 6, specifically stating that the deliberate non-compliance of the orders of this Court is by accused Nos.2 to 6 and they are necessary parties. Notice was ordered by this Court and accused Nos.2 to 5 were served and represented by their counsel and filed their objections to the said I.A.No.1/2020 stating that the impugned order dated 11/07/2019 is not challenged by the complainant and that there is no wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court as they were not aware about the proceedings held on 22/03/2018 and sought for dismissal.

20. What becomes clear from the above facts is that the order dated 11/07/2019 deleting accused Nos.2 to 5 from the array of the accused, no efforts are made by the complainant to recall the order, no documents are forthcoming that the said order is challenged and this Court takes note that the complainant is not aggrieved by deletion of accused

- 70 -

Nos.2 to 5 from the proceeding and the order dated 11/07/2019 has attained finality. This Court is unable to understand that, why an endure was made by accused No.1 to recall accused Nos.2 to 6, when the complainant is a silent spectator and not willing to prosecute against accused Nos.2 to 5 knowing fully well that the order is not signed by accused Nos.2 to 5 as is the specific assertion of complainant herself and the order dated 11/07/2019 has been complied by the complainant by deleting accused Nos.2 to 6 from the cause title and by filing amended petition on 18/07/2019. Be that as it may, I.A.No.1/2020 filed by accused No.1 is as good as reviewing the order dated 11/07/2019 and the complainant having no grievance, the burden being on the complainant after deletion of accused Nos.2 to 5 from the proceedings, to prove that accused No.1 has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court, I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly, the

- 71 -

complainant has proceeded only against accused No.1.

21. On 22/10/2021, this Court passed the following order:

"The present contempt petition is filed by the complainants against the accused alleging disobedience of the orders dated 20.4.2018 and 31.8.2018 made in W.P. Nos. 261/2018 & 4918-4921/2018.

By the order dated 20.4.2018, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Tribunal to pass final orders in the proceedings, in an expeditious manner in accordance with law. By the order dated 31.8.2018, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed that the Land Tribunal shall pass orders on or before 15.09.2018. In the said order, it is observed that the State shall not take steps to re-constitute the Tribunal until order is passed in the present matter and in any other matter where orders are reserved by the concerned Tribunal. The said orders were not complied and therefore, the present contempt petition is filed.

- 72 -

At the instance of the complainants, one Mr. T. Ramesh Babu, Tahsildar & Secretary, Land Tribunal, Mysore was impleaded as Accused No.6 by the order dated 27.03.2019.

On 11.7.2019, this Court on perusal of the affidavits filed by Accused Nos.2 to 6, found that there is no ground to proceed further so far as Accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned and accordingly, Accused Nos.2 to 6 are deleted from the proceedings. In the order dated 11.7.2019, it is further observed as under:

"The grievance of accused No.1 which she reiterates is that, she has complied with the orders of this Court. But, the same cannot be construed as compliance with only her signature.

Call next week for framing of charges against accused NO.1."

I.A. No.1/2020 is filed by Accused No.1 to recall the order dated 11.7.2019 by which Accused No.2 to 6 were deleted from the proceedings and posted the matter for framing of charges. In the affidavit filed in support of

- 73 -

the application, the 1st accused - Smt. Kusuma Kumari, the then Chairman of the Land Tribunal has stated that as per the order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, the Tribunal shall pass order on or before 15.9.2018 and accordingly before the said date, the order was passed and she has signed the said order, but the members of the Tribunal have not signed the order though they were present on that date and in fact they have signed the other orders of the Tribunal on the same day. Therefore, Accused No.1 sought to recall the order dated 11.7.2019 passed in the present contempt petition.

Sri Ravi H.K., learned counsel for Accused Nos.2 to 5 submits that Accused Nos.2 to 5 have not participated in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal in KLRM.481-564/1974-75.

Admittedly, the order passed by this Court dated 11.7.2019 deleting Accused Nos.2 to 6, on satisfaction that there was no need to proceed against them.

On careful perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is clear that it is

- 74 -

not stated in the affidavit that, in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 20.4.2018 and 31.8.2018, all the members i.e., Accused Nos.2 to 5 had participated in the proceedings and duly signed the order sheet and inspite of participation in the proceedings, the final order is not signed by the other members - Accused Nos.2 to 5 and Accused No.1 only has complied the order within the time stipulated. Prima facie, we are not satisfied with the way in which affidavit filed by the 1st accused - Chairman.

In order to verify the veracity of the statements made by 1st accused - Smt. Kusuma Kumari, the then Chairman of the Land Tribunal and the learned counsel for Accused No.1 and also learned counsel for Accused Nos.2 to 5, the learned AGA is directed to produce the records in Proceedings Nos.KLRM 481-564/1974-75 including the order sheet maintained by the Land Tribunal from 20.4.2018 to 15.9.2018 to verify whether Accused Nos.2 to 5, who have been deleted, have also participated in the proceedings.

It is also to be stated that if really the Accused Nos.2 to 5 have participated in the

- 75 -

proceedings before the Land Tribunal and deliberately not signed the final order, the 1st accused - Smt. Kusuma Kumari, the then Chairman of the Land Tribunal ought to have brought the same to the notice of this Court by filing necessary application and no such application is filed before this Court.

Further, the operative portion of the order dated 22.3.2018 passed by the Land Tribunal in Proceedings Nos.KLRM 481- 564/1974-75 depicts that the said order has been passed unanimously by the Tribunal. However, the opinion of the members of the Tribunal dated 21.5.2019 depicts that the said order dated 22.3.2018 has been passed unilaterally by the Chairman without their consent.

Post this matter on 28th October 2021. Copy of this order shall be furnished to the learned Government Advocate forthwith."

22. Further, on 02/06/2022, this Court passed the following order:

"The present contempt petition is filed by the complainant to take action against the

- 76 -

accused persons for the willful disobedience of the interim orders dated 20/04/2018, passed by this Court on I.A.No.1/2018 and 31/08/2018, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court, while considering the application, vacated the interim order and directed the Land Tribunal to pass final order in the proceedings in an expeditious manner and in accordance with law. Subsequently, on 31/08/2018, learned single Judge passed another order directing the Land Tribunal to pass orders on or before 15/09/2018 as the orders were not passed by the Land Tribunal and it was also made clear that the State shall not take steps to re-constitute the Tribunal until order is passed in this matter and in any other matter where orders are reserved by the concerned Tribunal/respondent.

2. It is the grievance of the complainants that the accused having not passed the orders within time, they have violated the order of this Court.

3. The accused persons appeared before this Court and filed objections.

- 77 -

4. It is the specific case of accused No.1/Smt. Kusuma Kumari that she has passed the orders within the time stipulated by this Court, but accused Nos.2 to 6 though participated in the proceedings and signed the order sheet, the final order is not signed.

5. It is the case of accused Nos.2 to 6

that this Court, vide order dated 11/07/2019 deleted accused Nos.2 to 6 from the array of the parties holding that there was no need to proceed against them. Accused Nos.2 to 6 further contended that it is the Chairman, who without the consent of other members of the Tribunal, proceeded to pass the order unilaterally. That is how the matter came up before this Court.

6. This Court, considering the rival contentions of both the parties, passed a detailed order on 22/10/2021. In view of the allegations and counter allegations, posted the matter on 28/10/2021. On 16/12/2021, this Court passed orders holding that there is a prima facie case to frame charge and the controversy can be decided after holding a detailed enquiry. Therefore, it is a fit case to proceed further.

- 78 -

At the request of learned counsel for accused No.1, list on 23/06/2022 for evidence."

23. On 02/06/2022, the charge and plea of the accused No.1 were recorded and the same reads as under:

CHARGE "That you, Accused No.1 being the responsible officer/the then, Chairman of the Land Tribunal, have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dated 20/04/2018, on I.A.No.1/2018, in W.P.Nos.261/2018 & 4918-4921/2018 and the order dated 31/08/2021 passed in the said writ petitions, thereby not complied with the order passed by this Court and not passed any order within the time stipulated.

Your deliberate act amounts to civil contempt within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act, within the cognizance of this Court.

- 79 -

Dated this the 02nd day of June, 2022."

PLEA Question: Have you heard the charge now read over and explained to you?

Answer : Yes.

Question: Do you plead guilty or have you any defence to make?

Answer : Pleaded not guilty and stated that in terms of the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, the Tribunal was to pass order on or before 15/09/2019. Before that date, orders were passed and signed by me, but the members of the Tribunal have not signed the order though they were present on the date and in fact, they have signed other orders of the Tribunal on the same day."

And the contempt petition was listed for evidence 23/06/2022.

- 80 -

24. The complainant examined herself as CW.1 and the relevant portion of examination in Chief and cross-examination reads as under:

"The Orders passed by the High Court dated 20.04.2018 and 31.08.2018 were not complied with by the accused. The Order passed by the Land Tribunal is in file. Only Chairman signed the order and the other members of have not signed the Land Tribunal Order. There was understanding between Chairman and members of the Committee. Thereby other members have not signed the order. The members have not signed the order since I did not fulfil their demand for money. The Chairman of the Land Tribunal also demanded the money. I was called to Chairman's house. I do not remember the date. But she demanded the money. I have not lodged any complaint to police or Lokayukta in this regard. At the time of demand, before I went to the house of the Chairman, there was phone call to my mobile number 9481005772 by the Chairman. My phone is not a smart phone.

(underlining by us)

- 81 -

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CW.1:

It is true that ultimately the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 15.09.2019 is in my favour. It is true that the aggrieved party filed writ petition against order passed by Land Tribunal and I do not remember the case number. W.P.No.4451/2019 was filed. It is true that I am respondent No.4(c) in the said writ petition. I am the power of attorney holder of all the respondents/land lords. The said writ petition was filed by Siddaiah. I do not remember whether I was a party or not in W.P.No.261/2008. It is true that the present Contempt Petition is filed for violation of the orders passed by learned single Judge dated 20.04.2018 and 31.08.2018. I am not aware whether Siddaiah was petitioner in the said writ petition. I am the respondent. Siddaiah has not filed any Contempt Petition before this Court. It is true that I have filed Contempt Petition against the Chairman and all Members of Land Tribunal. It is true that on 11.07.2019, this Court deleted Accused Nos.2 to 6 (Members). I have not filed any appeal against the said order. Even now I have grievance against Members of Land Tribunal.

It is true that the Chairman-Accused No.1

- 82 -

passed the order on 15.09.2019 and Chairman alone signed the order. It is false to suggest that I have not mentioned about the demand made by Chairman or Members either in Writ Petition or Contempt Petition. I am not in a position to read the contents of Writ Petition or Contempt Petition, now shown to me.

It is false to suggest that first time before this Court I am making allegation against the Chairman. I do not know whether my advocate has mentioned the same. It is false to suggest that alleged demand of money is not stated in earlier Writ Petition and the present Contempt Petition. I have not lodged any complaint against accused or other members of the Tribunal in this regard. It is false to suggest that accused No.1 has never demanded any money from me. I am giving evidence on my behalf and other complainants in the present Contempt Petition. Though Order is in my favour, it is in no way helpful to me as only Chairman has signed it and not any other members have signed the Order. It is false to suggest that the Accused No.1-Kusuma Kumari has not disobeyed the order passed wilfully. The witness volunteers that Accused No.1 has disobeyed the order intentionally.

- 83 -

Though Accused No.1 made phone calls several times, I have not disclosed the same to anybody. I have not produced any call detail records to the Court. It is false to suggest that I am making false statement against accused. Witness volunteers that what she is stating is 100 percent true.

CW.1 was re-examined and stated further as under, which does not find place in the complaint:

One Machanda Bopanna sent e-mail to me on 31st May 2018. He is office Assistant to the Chairman. The e-mail was sent attaching the draft copy of the Land Tribunal Order. I do not remember the date of the order attached to the e-mail. It is only a typed copy. No body had signed it. The said e-mail along with draft order of the Land Tribunal is marked as Ex.C1 subject to objections.

CW.1 was again cross-examined on the said aspect:

Machanda Bopanna has sent the e-mail from official laptop issued by the Land Tribunal. It is true that he attached Land Tribunal order dated 22.3.2018. It is false to

- 84 -

suggest that the Bopanna has not sent any draft of the Land Tribunal Order. The draft was sent through Machanda Bopanna by the Chairman to get it corrected from my lawyer. I have not given any advance before sending the draft. It is false to suggest that Machanda Bopanna has not sent e-mail along with draft of Land Tribunal order. I gave the draft to my lawyer to correct it and send back. The corrected copy may be in my file. It is false to suggest that no such draft Order copy was sent. But it is 200%.

List on 14.07.2022."

25. By way of re-examination, complainant marked a draft order of the Land Tribunal as Ex.C-1, which according to CW.1 was received through email and the complainant No.3 sought to produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act by way of an affidavit. The accused has not chosen to lead any evidence. From the facts stated in the evidence of CW.1, very surprisingly a totally different stand is taken by the complainant which does

- 85 -

not find a place in the pleadings, when the pleadings and evidence to some extent as stated by CW.1 is clear that only Chairman has signed the order and other members have not signed, then how the complainant can proceed against accused No.1 stating that there is wilful disobedience is understandable. The second part of the evidence is taking a total new stand which is very serious in nature and without there being any pleadings to that effect any amount of evidence, will not be considered as is the settled proposition. Such assertion of the complainant ought to have been atleast whispered in the pleadings, having failed to do so and in the absence of accused Nos.2 to 5, any explanation offered by the complainant is not acceptable.

One aspect is stated here that against the order dated 22/03/2018 passed by the Land Tribunal, W.P.No.4451/2019 is preferred by the private respondents and is pending for consideration.

- 86 -

26. Insofar as Willful Disobedience of the person, for holding to have committed a contempt is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, [(1999) 7 SCC 569] (Kapildeo Prasad Sah) wherein, it is held that for holding a person to have committed a contempt, it must be shown that there was a willful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court and a person who claims breach of Court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court's order and if such allegation is proved, contempt can be said to have been made out not otherwise. The Court noted that power to punish for the contempt is necessary to maintain effective legal system and at paragraph No.9 and 11 held as under:

"9. For holding the respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been

- 87 -

wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the court. Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the court's order. Since notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far-reaching consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order has been made out. Whether disobedience is wilful in a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied with. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when attention of the person is drawn to the court's orders and its implications. Disobedience of court's order strikes at the very root of rule of law on which our system of governance is based. Power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice.

x x x

11. No person can defy the court's order. Wilful would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order.

- 88 -

A petitioner who complains breach of the court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the court's order."

27. In the present case, the complainant though alleges that there was a deliberate contumacious disobedience of the Court's order by accused Nos.1 to 5, the said allegations was not proved in light of deletion of accused Nos.2 to 5 from the proceedings, who according to the complainant had not signed the order and thus, proceeding against accused No.1 alone would not amount to a contempt of the order, as accused No.1 against whom the complainant is trying to proceed, had signed the order and which is also not disputed by the complainant. This being so, the complainant has failed to prove that there was a deliberate and contumacious disobedience of the Court's order on part of accused No.1.

- 89 -

28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godha and others, [(2003) 11 SCC 1] (Ashok Paper Kamgar Union) wherein, the Court had an occasion to consider the "willful disobedience" of an order of the Court. Therefore, it was stated that "willful disobedience" means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something, the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law and at paragraph No.17 held as under:

"17. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines "civil contempt" and it means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of undertaking given to a court. "Wilful" means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law

- 90 -

forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts mentioned above show that none of the respondents to the petition can be held to be directly responsible if the Scheme which had been formulated by Government of India on 28-6-1996 and had been approved by this Court by the order dated 8-7-1996 could not be implemented in letter and spirit as many factors have contributed to the same. The reasons given for non-inclusion of Shri Umadhar Prasad Singh in signing of the agreement appear to be quite plausible. NCFL has undoubtedly not discharged its liability of

- 91 -

making payment of its entire liability of Rs.6 crores. However it has come out with a case that some additional expenditure has been incurred in running the unit. It is not possible to get the complete financial picture only on the basis of the affidavits filed in the present petition. On the material on record, therefore, it is not possible to hold that the charge of having committed contempt of court on account of alleged non-compliance with the orders passed by this Court on 8-7-1996, 1-5- 1997 and 31-7-2000 has been established against any one of the respondents."

29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and another vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and others, [(2008) 14 SCC 561] (Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai) has held that the act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case considering the cases Kapildeo Prasad Sah's and Ashok Paper Kamgar:

- 92 -

"75. It is well settled that an apology is neither a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness (vide M.Y. Shareef v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur; M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

76. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) v. Ashok Khot, a three-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the question in the light of an "apology" as a weapon of defence by the contemnor with a prayer to drop the proceedings. The Court took note of the following observations of this Court in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P. "32. ... We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap-say sorry- and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying 'sorry' does not make the slipper taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen. For it is one

- 93 -

thing to 'say' sorry-it is another to 'feel' sorry."

The Court, therefore, rejected the prayer and stated:

"31. Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward".

Similar view was taken in other cases also by this Court."

30. Thus, it can be gathered that accused No.1 has signed the order as a Chairman of the Land Tribunal and there being no signatures by the other members of the Tribunal, who are accused Nos.2 to 5, there cannot be willful disobedience of the orders of the Court dated 20.04.2018 and 31.08.2018 on the part of accused No.1, which would, in other words,

- 94 -

prove that accused No.1 has performed her part of the obligation by signing the order and this cannot be construed as contempt of the order as directed by this Court, by its order dated 31.08.2018 directing the Tribunal to pass an order on or before 15.09.2018. The documents on record would depict that proceedings were conducted on 12.09.2018 and was signed by the Chairman of the Land Tribunal, who is accused No.1 and not signed by other members i.e., accused Nos.2 to 5. This being so, the complainant cannot contend that there was a deliberate and willful disobedience on the part of accused No.1 to fall under Section 2(b) and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish accused No.1.

31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan vs. Tarun Bajaj and Others, [(2014) 16 SCC 204] (Ram Kishan), has held that the obligation of exercising contempt jurisdiction held that the power must be exercised with an action

- 95 -

rendered more than mere probabilities by delineating the conduct, which was held to be willful disobedience and at paragraph No.12, held as under:

"12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is "willful". The word "willful" introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. "Wilful" means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a "bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely". Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same.

- 96 -

Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. "Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct". (Vide S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao, Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana, Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, State of Orissa, v. Mohd. Illiyas, and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE."

32. Unconditional apology tendered by accused No.1 is accepted as the same was tendered in the first instance itself and consistent stand taken in all the affidavit is that there is no wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order was due to genuine inability to comply due to non-signing of the Members of the Tribunal (accused Nos.2 to 5) and the wilful

- 97 -

disobedience is to be attributed to accused Nos.2 to 5. The Apex Court in catena of judgments held that apology tendered at the first instance and if it is sincerely meant it has to be accepted.

33. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dinabandhu Sahu stated supra at para No.2 has held as under:

"2. After this explanation was given the Appellants say that they had stated before the learned Chief Justice and A. Misra, J. who were hearing the petition that they would not have filed the representation petition had they known all the circumstances which were explained by the learned Chief Justice and prayed through Mr. Chari appearing on behalf of the opposite party that they may be forgiven. This fact emerges also from the judgment of the learned Chief Justice who in paragraph 57 said that Mr. Chari appearing on behalf of all the opposite parties asked for forgiveness of the Court as he put it publicly in open Court. The other learned Judge A. Misra, J, also stated that this was so and that it was given particularly in view of the strained

- 98 -

relations which existed between the rival political parties and which led to some misunderstanding of the whole situation, but he pointed out that except for this the respondents at no stage have chosen to express any regret or tender apology. The learned Chief Justice also stated that there was nothing in writing either by way of an apology nor has regret been tendered in the Court. Mr. Chari before us pointed out, with some justification that if all that the Court wanted was a written apology by the appellants there would have been no hesitation in their giving it as the very cause for their apprehension had been removed, by the explanation given by the learned Chief Justice to remove any misunderstanding in the public mind, which misunderstanding no longer existed after that explanation. Though the case was fully argued, even before us the learned Advocate on behalf of his clients made the following statement expressing their apology:

My client had already expressed that the misunderstandings which caused them to file the petition-the subject-matter of the contempt proceedings had been removed by the explanation given by the learned Chief

- 99 -

Justice and stated that if they had known this, they would never have written it. In view of this they had also asked for the forgiveness of the Court out of its generosity. I have, therefore, no hesitation at all in offering unconditional apology on their behalf for having written the petition. On behalf my clients, I again repeat that and tender an unqualified apology for presenting the petition.

The learned Advocate for the State of Orissa Mr. Chatterjee frankly conceded that having regard to this apology which has again been reiterated the proceedings may be dropped. We think that this is a correct and proper attitude to adopt in respect of these proceedings. Whatever may have been the justification for the High Court to initiate the proceedings in respect of a matter, which in the state of the atmosphere then prevailing was likely to create a suspicion, whether justifiable or imaginary, in the public mind and particularly in the mind of the litigants, by the circumstance that a person who is a Respondent in a case where a judgment was reserved was given prominence and referred to in terms of praise or eulogy, that situation had

- 100 -

changed after the learned Chief Justice had given an explanation for the reasons why Dr. Mahtab was given a seat among the few selected persons at the Buffet lunch and other matters incidental thereto. The apology tendered was not merely an apology but was something more than an apology because what was asked of the Court out of its generosity was forgiveness; that this was sincerely meant is amply demonstrated by its being repeated again before us We think that the contempt if any has been certainly purged in the manner in which the apology was given and the matter should have been set at rest there. It is no part of the judicial function to be vindictive or allow any personal or other considerations to enter in the discharge of its functions and since both the learned Chief Justice and Misra, J. would have been prepared to accept that apology if it was given by the Appellants themselves and in writing and since Mr. Chari said that the Appellants would have been prepared to give such an apology in writing, if that was the only thing that was required and even now are ready and willing to do so we feel that the apology tendered on their behalf by their Senior Advocate can well be accepted

- 101 -

and the proceedings closed. We accordingly allow the appeals, set aside the convictions and direct the repayment of the fine, if any, and close the proceedings."

34. The Hon'ble Apex Court in B.K. Kar stated supra at para No.7 has held as under:

"7. Before a subordinate court can be found guilty of disobeying the order of the superior court and thus to have committed contempt of court, it is necessary to show that the disobedience was intentional. There is no room for inferring an intention to disobey an order unless the person charged had knowledge of the order. If what a subordinate court has done is in utter ignorance of an order of a superior court, it would clearly not amount to intentional disobedience of that court's order and would, therefore, not amount to a contempt of court at all. There may perhaps be a case where an order disobeyed could be reasonably construed in two ways and the subordinate court construed it in one of those ways but in a way different from that intended by the superior court. Surely, it cannot be said that disobedience of the order by the

- 102 -

subordinate court was contempt of the superior court. There may possibly be a case where disobedience is accidental. If that is so, there would be no contempt. What is, therefore, necessary to establish in a case of this kind is that the subordinate court knew of the order of the High Court and that knowing the order it disobeyed it. The knowledge must, however, be obtained from a source which is either authorised or otherwise authentic. In the case before us it is not clear as to who the person who signed the application dated November 27, 1957 was because the signature is illegible. It was not countersigned by a pleader not is there anything to show that it was presented in court by a pleader authorised to appear on behalf of the complainant. Furthermore, it was not accompanied by an affidavit. Therefore, there could be no guarantee for the truth of the facts stated therein. No doubt, it was accompanied by a telegram and even though it was addressed to a pleader there is nothing to indicate that he was authorised to appear for the complainant. Further it is not possible to say as to the capacity of the sender. Had the telegram been received from the court or from an advocate appearing on behalf of the

- 103 -

complainant before the High Court and addressed either to the court or pleader for the complainant different considerations would have arisen and it may have been possible to take the view that the information contained therein had the stamp of authenticity. Of course, we do not want to lay it down here as law that every telegram purporting to be signed by an advocate or a pleader is per se guarantee of the truth of the facts stated therein and also of the fact that it was actually sent by the person whose name it bears. In order to assure the Court about these matters an affidavit from the party would be necessary. Upon the materials before us we are satisfied that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was entitled to ignore the telegram as well as the application. We, therefore, hold that his refusal to act on the telegram did not amount to contempt of court. We may add that the fact that on receiving a copy of the High Court's order through the Additional District Magistrate not only were further proceedings stayed but a writ to redeliver possession was not permitted to issue. This would show clearly that there was no intention on the part either of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate or the second officer to

- 104 -

disobey the order of the High Court. The conviction as also the fine of the appellant is erroneous and accordingly set aside."

35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Anuj Maheshwari stated supra at para No.6 has held as under:

"6. Taking these factors into account, we accept the unqualified apology tendered by Mrs. Kandpal. At the same time, we sternly caution her to be more heedful of judicial orders in future."

36. In the cases of Ranveer Yadav, Maranna, Archana Jawaharlal Awasthy and Veldanda Srilatha stated supra, relied upon by the complainant, were the cases, where apology was not accepted for two reasons:

(i) Belated apology

(ii) Even if it is belated where apology is without real contribution and remorse and was merely tendered as a weapon of defence.

- 105 -

37. In the present case, the contempt petition is considered on merits and not only on the unconditional apology tendered by accused No.1, which is incidental and mark the decorum and majesty of the Court's order and see that no person can escape from the clutches of contempt by merely tendering an unconditional apology after disobeying the orders of Court. This is a case where there is no deliberance on the part of accused No.1 and the said judgments relied upon by the complainant are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

38. The judgment in Maranna's case stated supra, we have no quarrel with respect to the proposition expressed in the said judgment, but the Act or omission has to be judged in the facts and circumstances of the case.

- 106 -

39. Accordingly, we answer the point framed for consideration in the negative for the reasons stated supra. The complainants have failed to make out a case that accused No.1 has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders dated 20/04/2018 and 31/08/2018 passed in W.P.No.261/2018 c/w. W.P.Nos.4918-4921/2018 to come under the purview of Section 2(a)(b) and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. With a warning to accused No.1 not to repeat such action in future and see that the strict compliance of the orders of Court has to be followed.

40. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER Contempt petition is hereby dropped with a warning to accused No.1 not to repeat such mistake throughout her career as a public servant and accused

- 107 -

No.1 be more careful, when it comes to orders passed by this Court in future.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE S*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court