Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Borada Gunakara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 December, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
C.C.No.952 of 2021
O R D E R:
This contempt case has been filed by the petitioners alleging that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 31.12.2019.
2. This Court has heard Sri G.Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri I.Kotireddy and Sri P.Subash, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that despite the order passed by this Court, even as on 15.06.2021, the respondents are interfering by laying the soil to level the ground without issuing any notice. Learned counsel also relies upon the photographs that are filed to argue that there is willful and wanton disobedience of the Courts order. He therefore submits that this is a fit case in which punishment is to be ordered.
4. Learned counsels for the respondents on the other hand relied upon the reply affidavits filed.
2
5. On behalf of respondent No.2, it is argued that the said Officer/respondent did not commit any contempt. It is stated that a notice was issued on 10.02.2021 to the petitioners to which no reply has been given by the occupants of the property. This is only a notice asking the parties to appear before the Tahsildar with the requisite proof.
6. On behalf of respondent No.3, an affidavit was initially find on 31.07.2021 stating that he was not present at the site either on 14.06.2021 or on 15.06.2021. It is stated in this affidavit that the deponent/respondent No.3 was present at Vijayawada on 14.06.2021 and on 15.06.2021. A further affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 stating that the deponent B.Govinda Rao was present before the CCLA to submit the confidential reports. Along with said counter affidavit, a photo copy of the leave letter is filed along with details of a hotel accommodation booking on 14.06.2021. Therefore, it is submitted that respondent No.3 is also not present at the site.
7. On behalf of respondent No.4, a counter affidavit is filed stating that he never interfered with the alleged possession of 3 the petitioners‟ property and he was not at all involved in the alleged removal of the cattle shed etc., as alleged.
8. This Court, after hearing all the counsel, notices that this Court directed the respondents to take possession of the property by following the due process of law if they so desire. The allegation in the Contempt case is that on 15.06.2021, there is an interference and thus contempt. A perusal of para 5 of the affidavit shows that it is not clearly mentioned which respondent has actually interfered with the possession of the petitioners and contrary to this Courts order. Para 5 merely states that "the respondent even today i.e. on 15.06.2021 are interfering". When this Court posed a question to the learned counsel for the petitioners, he relied upon later part of para 5 to submit that the averment is made against the 3rd respondent only and that the petitioners are confining their case to the 3rd respondent.
9. The reply affidavits filed by the 3rd respondent show that he was not present in the site either on 14.06.2021 or on 15.06.2021. It is stated that he was in Vijayawada for a case on 14.06.2021 and on 15.06.2021. In the subsequent affidavit filed on 21.09.2022, it is stated that he was in 4 Vijayawada in the Office of the CCLA to submit his annual confidential reports. It is also asserted that he was on leave on 14.06.2021 and 15.06.2021. Documents are filed to show that he had checked into a hotel called „Akshaya Nest‟ in Vijayawada.
10. It is a fact that there is a slight discrepancy between what is stated in the initial affidavit and the subsequent affidavit. Initially, it was mentioned that he was in the Office of the CCLA because of a case. In the latter affidavit, it is stated that he is in the Office of the CCLA to submit his annual confidential reports. The fact, however, remains that the 3rd respondent has filed some proof to show that he applied for leave and is at Vijayawada on 14.06.2021 and 15.06.2021. The Contempt affidavit filed does not mention the time at which the alleged incident took place. It also does not state who amongst the four respondents have actually committed the contempt.
11. In a case of this nature, when willful disobedience of a Court order is alleged, the affidavit should be clear and categorical. The proof of contempt should be clear as the proceedings are quasi criminal in nature (Chhotu Ram v. 5 Urvashi Gulati1). In the absence of clear and the categorical details, this Court cannot come to a conclusion, which of the respondents actually committed the alleged contempt. Disobedience should be willful and clear. The averments in the affidavit and the documents filed do not categorically point out who amongst the respondents committed the default. Even if the case of the petitioner is accepted and it is the 3rd respondent who committed contempt, the reply affidavit filed show that he was not present at the site on the date of the alleged contempt. Even if the discrepancy is overlooked, the fact remains that he has asserted on oath that he was in Vijayawada on 14.06.2021 and 15.06.2021.
12. Considering all the material, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner did not make out a case for exercise of contempt jurisdiction.
13. The Contempt case is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. It is made clear that the dismissal of this contempt case will not preclude the petitioners from moving an 1 (2001) 7 SCC 530 6 appropriate application, if there is willful disobedience of this Courts order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.
________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J Date: 05.12.2022 KLP