Telangana High Court
M/S Avaneesh Earth Movers vs M.Venkateswarlu on 18 November, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CONTEMPT CASE Nos.1537 AND 1554 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. Both the Contempt Cases are filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court passed in W.P. Nos.27077 and 27087 of 2021, both dated 29.10.2021.
3. The petitioner herein filed W.P. No.27077 of 2021 seeking the following relief:
"....issue such appropriate writ, order or direction, more so particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in processing the Quarry Lease Application of the Petitioner submitted on 06-06-2018 even after receiving the No Objection Report from the Tahsildar, Amangal Mandal, for grant of Quarry Lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 9-89 hectares in Sy.No.304 of Akuthotapally Village, Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as long back as on 5-9-2020, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of TS Miner Mineral 2 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 Concession Rules, 1966 and also Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India."
4. It also filed W.P. No.27087of 2021 seeking the following relief:
"...to issue such appropriate writ, order or direction, more so particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in processing the Quarry Lease Application of the Petitioner submitted on 06/06/2018 even after receiving the No Objection Report from the Tahsildar, Amangal Mandal, for grant of Quarry Lease in favour of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 14-45 hectares in Sy.No.304 of Akuthotapally Village, Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as long back as on 51912020, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of TS Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and also Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India."
5. Vide order dated 29.10.2021, this Court disposed of the both the writ petitions separately with the following directions:
W.P. No.27077 of 2021:
"4. In view of the above made submissions, the present writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 - Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, to consider the representation 3 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 dated 06.06.2018 submitted by the petitioner and pass necessary orders 2 thereon strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that respondent No.3 before passing any orders shall put the petitioner on notice and afford it an opportunity of hearing. A copy of the order passed by respondent No.3 shall be communicated to the petitioner..."
W.P. No.27087 of 2021:
"4. In view of the above made submissions, the present writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 - Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, to consider the representation dated 06.06.2018 submitted by the petitioner and pass necessary orders 2 thereon strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that respondent No.3 before passing any orders shall put the petitioner on notice and afford it an opportunity of hearing. A copy of the order passed by respondent No.3 shall be communicated to the petitioner..."
6. Now, the petitioner filed both the contempt cases alleging that the respondent herein, who is respondent No.3 in the aforesaid writ petitions, did not consider its representations dated 06.06.2018 within the 4 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copies of the said orders. The respondent received the copies of the orders in the aforesaid writ petitions on 10.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 and the period of eight (08) weeks time was expired by the first and second week of January, 2022 respectively, whereas the respondent passed the orders on 24.09.2022 stating that the quarry lease applications of the petitioner for grant of Quarry Lease for Rough Stone and Road Metal over an extents of 12.0 Hects. and 15.0 Hects. respectively in Survey No.304 of Akuthotapally Village on 06.06.2018 for a period of 15 years has become ineligible as per amended Rule 12 of the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for short 'Rules, 1966'). Thus, it shows that the respondent herein has passed the aforesaid orders much beyond eight (08) weeks as ordered by this Court, and thereby the respondent herein willfully and deliberately violated the orders passed by this Court. In view of the same, the respondent herein has to be punished under Contempt of Courts Act.
7. In the counter as well as additional counter filed by the respondent, it has been specifically contended that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Ranga Reddy District (respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions) requested the 5 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 petitioner to attend for survey and inspection of quarry lease applied area on 09.12.2021 so as to take further action. The Surveyor conducted survey and demarcation of the quarry lease applied area on 09.12.2021 along with Empanelled Agency i.e., M/s. Rehoboth Survey. The Managing Partner of the petitioner was also present and shown the applied area. Thereafter, they have submitted their report and the same was pending process before respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions. While so, the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.26 of Industries & Commerce (Mines-I) Department, dated 31.03.2022 issued amendments to Rule - 12 (1) of the Rules, 1966 to the following effect:
"The Minor Mineral Concessions except ordinary sand and areas reserved under Rule 9-A shall be granted through auction. The procedure for grant of Minor Mineral Concessions in Government lands through auction and the procedure for grant of Minor Mineral Concessions in Patta lands shall be prescribed by the State Government. All applications for minor minerals received prior to the date of commencement of these amendments to Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966, shall become ineligible."
8. In view of the aforesaid amendment, the applications of the petitioner have become ineligible and accordingly passed the orders on 6 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 24.09.2022 and the same were communicated to the petitioner through registered post. Thus, there was no lapse on his part and that he did not disobey the orders of this Court as alleged by the petitioner.
9. With regard to other contention of the petitioner that the respondent herein having kept its applications pending attended and disposed of several quarry lease applications with a view to see its applications ineligible as the respondent had prior knowledge of amendments to Rule - 12 of the Rules, 1966, the respondent in his additional counter, it has been specifically stated that between the orders passed by this Court and the G.O.Ms.No.26, proposals for grant of quarry lease from various Districts along with statutory documents were received. After verification of the same, the DDM & G, Hyderabad has issued ten (10) Letter of Intent (LOI) for submission of statutory clearances within six (06) months for grant of quarry lease. Even the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ranga Reddy District also sent three (03) proposals, but the same were not falling in the applied area of the petitioner. The respondent did not receive the petitioner's application proposals and the same are pending at the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Rangareddy District for finalization of Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) Map by the Empanel 7 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 Agency. Thus, there was no willful and deliberate act on the part of the respondent in disobeying the orders of this Court. However, he tendered unconditional apology for the lapse, if any, on his part.
10. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions and perusal of record, it is clear that this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions on 29.10.2021 directing the respondent herein to consider the representation dated 06.06.2018 submitted by the petitioner and pass necessary orders within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said orders. It is also not in dispute that the respondent received the copies of the said orders on 10.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 respectively as alleged by the petitioner, whereas it is the specific plea of the respondent that in fact the file was not received by him and the same is with respondent No.4 in the writ petition. Even otherwise, as per the amendment to Rule 12 of the Rules, 1966 vide G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 31.03.2022, the applications submitted by the petitioner became ineligible and accordingly he has passed speaking orders. Therefore, there were no lapses on his part in disobeying the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions and accordingly he sought to dismiss both the contempt cases. Thus, there is substance in the plea taken by 8 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 the respondent. Even otherwise, the respondent also tendered an unconditional apology to this Court.
11. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that keeping its application pending, respondent disposed of other application, in the additional counter affidavit, it is specifically contended that between the orders passed by this Court and the G.O.Ms.No.26, proposals for grant of quarry lease from various Districts along with statutory documents were received. After verification of the same, the DDM & G, Hyderabad has issued ten (10) Letter of Intent (LOI) for submission of statutory clearances within six (06) months for grant of quarry lease. Even the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ranga Reddy District also sent three (03) proposals, but the same were not falling in the applied area of the petitioner. The respondent did not receive the petitioner's application proposals and the same are pending at the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Rangareddy District for finalization of Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) Map by the Empanel Agency.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments time and again categorically held that to punish a contemnor under Sections - 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, there should be deliberate and 9 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 willful violation of the order and mere allegation of violation of the order is not sufficient.
13. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India 1, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court while elucidating on the contempt jurisdiction held thus:
"42. The contempt of Court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions. This jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of the Courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law. It is an unusual type of jurisdiction combining "the jury, the judge and the hangman" and it is so because the Court is not adjudicating upon any claim between litigating parties. This jurisdiction is not exercised to protect the dignity of an individual judge but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. In the general interest of the community it is imperative that the authority of Courts should not be imperilled and there should be no unjustifiable interference in the administration of justice. It is a matter between the Court and the 1 . (1998) 4 SCC 409 10 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 contemner and third parties cannot intervene. It is exercised in a summary manner in aid of the administration of justice, the majesty of law and the dignity of the Courts. No such act can be permitted which may have the tendency to shake the public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the administration of justice."
14. In Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana 2, the Apex Court elucidated on willful disobedience and the relevant paragraph is extracted herein below:
"9. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') defines "civil contempt" to mean "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court."
Where the contempt consists in failure to comply with or carry out an order of a Court made in favour of a party, it is a civil contempt. The person or persons in whose favour such order or direction has been made can move the Court for initiating proceeding for contempt against the alleged contemner, with a view to enforce the right flowing from the order or direction in question. But such a proceeding is not like an execution proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure. The party in whose favour an order has been passed, is entitled to the benefit of 2 . (1994) 6 SCC 332 11 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 such order. The Court while considering the issue as to whether the alleged contemner should be punished for not having complied with and carried out the direction of the Court, has to take into consideration all facts and circumstances of a particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while defining civil contempt, have said that it must be wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court. Before a contemner is punished for non-compliance of the direction of a Court, the Court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. The civil Court while executing a decree against the judgment-debtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was wilful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the Court to execute the decree whatever may be consequence thereof. But while examining the grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to initiate the proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before any such contemner is held guilty and punished, the Court has to record a finding that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. If from the circumstances of a particular case, brought to the notice of the Court, the Court is satisfied that although there has been a disobedience but such disobedience is the result of 12 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemner to comply with the order, the Court may not punish the alleged contemner."
15. While reviewing the nature of contempt proceedings, it is important to examine the acts of the alleged contemnor. The Court has clarified that while the beneficiary of a Court order is entitled to its enforcement, the evaluation of whether a contemnor should be punished for non-compliance involves a comprehensive consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. The Contempt of Courts Act specifies that civil contempt involves willful disobedience of Court order. Consequently, before a contemnor can be penalized, the Court must ascertain not only that there has been disobedience but also that such disobedience was deliberate and intentional.
16. In a contempt proceeding, before a contemnor can be adjudged guilty and subjected to punishment, the Court must establish that the disobedience was both willful and intentional. The Court must make a specific finding to this effect. Furthermore, if the Court, upon examining the circumstances of a particular case, concludes that disobedience occurred due to extenuating factors, it retains the discretion 13 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 to refrain from punishing the alleged contemnor despite acknowledging the anomaly, if any.
17. In Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi 3, the Apex Court in a similar view held as under:
"30. In an appropriate case where exceptional circumstances exist, the Court may also resort to the provisions applicable in case of civil contempt, in case of violation/breach of undertaking/ judgment/ order or decree. However, before passing any final order on such application, the Court must satisfy itself that there is violation of such judgment, decree, direction or order and such disobedience is willful and intentional. Though in a case of execution of a decree, the executing Court may not be bothered whether the disobedience of the decree is wilful or not and the Court is bound to execute a decree whatever may be the consequence thereof. In a contempt proceeding, the alleged contemnor may satisfy the Court that disobedience has been under some compelling circumstances, and in that situation, no punishment can be awarded to him."
xxxx xxxx xxxx "38. The contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the standard of proof required is in the same manner as in other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all 3 . (2012) 4 SCC 307 14 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within the ambit of the said provision. The case should not rest only on surmises and conjectures. In Debabrata Bandhopadhyaya v. State of W.B. [AIR 1969 SC 189 : 1969 Cri LJ 401] , this Court observed as under: (AIR p. 193, para 9).
"9. A question whether there is contempt of Court or not is a serious one. The Court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation.
It behoves the Court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in Courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished. ... Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged."(Emphasis added)"
Proving the specific intention behind an act or omission is improbable. Consequently, in such an event, Courts must approach this issue objectively, presuming intention based on the actions taken, as 15 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 individuals are generally presumed to intend the probable consequences of their actions.
18. In Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (deceased) rep. by LRs.4, relied on the principles laid down by Niaz Mohammad2, Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, 5 Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj 6 and also the definition of 'willful' from Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at Page 1599 along with the definition of 'civil contempt' under Section - 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Apex Court in paragraph No.56 held as under:
"56. Hence, the expression or word "wilful" means act or omission which is done voluntarily or intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which 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 Page 44 of 83 to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose."
19. In light of the aforesaid principle, it thus becomes clear that for bringing an action under the ambit of civil contempt, there has to be a 4 . 2023 INSC 805 5 . (2003) 11 SCC 1 6 . (2014) 16 SCC 204 16 KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 willful and deliberate disobedience to the order or willful breach of the order. The contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down by the Apex Court, coming to the case on hand, there were no lapses on the part of the respondent in disobeying the orders of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition as the applications of the petitioner were with respondent No.4 in the writ petitions and that as per the amendment to Rule 12 of the Rules, 1966 vide G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 31.03.2022, the applications submitted by the petitioner became ineligible and respondent also passed necessary orders to that effect and communicated copies thereof to the petitioner. Even otherwise, the respondent tendered an unconditional apology to this Court. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case of willful and deliberate disobedience of orders of this Court. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise the said jurisdiction by punishing the respondent.
21. Both the Contempt Cases are accordingly closed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 17
KL,J C.C. Nos.1537 & 1554 of 2022 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Contempt Cases shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 18th November, 2024 Mgr