Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Smt. R. Radha vs Sri V. Prasad, Asst. City Planner, ... on 31 March, 2016
Author: A.Ramalingeswara Rao
Bench: A.Ramalingeswara Rao
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
Contempt Case No. 1481 of 2015
31-03-2016
Smt. R. Radha Petitioner
Sri V. Prasad, Asst. City Planner, Circle No.18, GHMC, Secunderabad....
Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kowturu Vinayakumar
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri P. Keshava Rao
<Gist :
>Head Note :
?Cases referred
2008 Crl.L.J (NOC) 327 (BOM.)
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
Contempt Case No.1481 of 2015
Order:
This Contempt Case was filed alleging non-implementation of the order
dated 08.12.2014 passed by this Court in WP No.11968 of 2008.
2. The said Writ Petition was filed challenging the notice issued under
Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, when the
application of the petitioner for regularisation under building penalization
scheme
was pending.
3. The said notice was issued at the instance of the third respondent. When
the writ petition came up for consideration, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the second respondent stated that the second respondent passed orders on
25.04.2012 regularizing the deviated construction and in those circumstances the
third respondent sought permission of the Court to challenge the said orders in
an appeal before the appellate authority. Accordingly, the writ petition was
disposed of on 8-12-2014, giving liberty to the third respondent to file an
appeal
against the orders of regularization dated 25.04.2012 within a period of two
months and the appellate authority was directed to pass orders within a period
of
two months thereafter.
4. The petitioner herein states that she filed an appeal before the
respondent
within time on 20.01.2015 and the respondent also issued a notice on
28.02.2015 indicating that hearing would be conducted on 28.02.2015. When no
orders were passed thereon after conducting hearing, the petitioner issued a
notice through her counsel on 06.06.2015 and in spite of receipt of the said
notice, the respondent has not chosen to pass orders. In those circumstances,
the present Contempt Case was filed on 27.07.2015.
5. When the Contempt Case came up before this Court, notice before
admission was ordered on 14.08.2015 and in spite of three adjournments no
counter was filed on behalf of the respondent. Having left with no alternative,
the Contempt Case was admitted on 30.10.2015. The respondent appeared in
person pursuant to the notice.
6. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent on 25.11.2015 admitting
that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 20.01.2015 and the date of
hearing was fixed on 28.02.2015. He also stated that the petitioner attended the
hearing on 28.02.2015, but the orders could not be passed as town planning
staff were drafted to work as Nodal Officers for collection of property tax and
they were busy with Swatch Hyderabad programme. Ultimately, the orders were
passed on 23.11.2015 in proceedings No.2084/TPS/C-18/NZ/GHMC/2015, before
filing counter in the present contempt case, rejecting the appeal and the orders
were served on the petitioner in person.
7. Thus, the orders, in compliance of the orders of this Court dated
08.12.2014 were passed only on 23.11.2015, when the Contempt Case was
heard. In the circumstances, it has to be seen whether the orders passed by the
respondent are in compliance with the orders of this court or would amount to
wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court inviting action under the
provisions
of Contempt of Courts Act or inherent powers of this court for punishing a
violator of the orders of this court.
8. There is no dispute that this Court fixed time limit of two months for
preferring an appeal by the petitioner and disposal of the appeal within two
months thereafter. The petitioner preferred the appeal on 20.01.2015 and the
appeal was also heard on 28.02.2015, but no orders were passed. There was no
response to the notice issued before admitting the present Contempt Case and
no reason is given in the counter affidavit. Even after admitting the Contempt
Case also no order was passed. Only at the fag end, the order was passed
rejecting the appeal. We are not on the result of the appeal or merits of the
case. This Court is concerned with the attitude exhibited by the Officer who is
holding the post of Assistant City Planner in the Municipal Corporation.
9. Learned Counsel for the Contemnor has relied on a decision of the
Bombay High Court reported in V.D. Kavatkar v. Fatima Huseni
Radhapurwala , wherein on the facts of the said case apology was accepted.
10. It has become a common practice in majority of the cases to ignore the
time fixed by this Court for compliance of the orders. The aggrieved writ
petitioners had to once again come to this Court alleging violation of the
orders.
The Contempt Cases are being fought as if they are original proceedings and the
adjournments are being sought. It is a common plea of the officers that they
have taken charge recently or that they are busy with their other official
duties.
This Court is well aware that no officer will sit idle in the office only
waiting for
orders of this Court to be implemented. This Court is working hard to redress
the grievances of the petitioners and depending on the facts of each case has
been fixing the time limits for disposal of the cases by the concerned officers
when the matters were remitted to them. If there was any inconvenience on the
part of the officers, it is always open to them to approach this Court seeking
enlargement of time for implementation. The peculiarity of this case is that
the
respondent who is holding the post of Assistant City Planner which is above the
post of a Section Officer in GHMC did not care for a notice issued before
admitting the present contempt case. He did not explain the reason for his
conduct in his affidavit. No reason came forward in his affidavit indicating
the
reason for non-passing of an order after hearing the matter on 28.02.2015.
These facts would clearly show that the respondent has utter disregard to the
orders of this Court or to the time stipulated in the order. The apology
tendered
by him in the affidavit is a mere pretence and in a routine manner. He should
have shown his bona fides by answering to the notice issued by this Court before
admitting the case or by expeditiously passing an order immediately.
11. This Court, thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has no
hesitation to hold that the respondent has disregarded the orders of this Court
and scant respect to the majesty of this Court. This is a fit case to send the
respondent to civil prison for his callousness but imposes an exemplary fine of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to be payable from his pocket
to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority for his disobedience to the
order
of this Court dated 08.12.2014. The said amount shall be paid within a period
of
four (4) weeks from today, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one week for which necessary steps would be taken by the
Registrar of this court. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the
Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad for his
perusal and placing it in the service record of the respondent.
12. The Contempt Case is accordingly disposed of.
13. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending in
this
Contempt Case shall stand closed.
________________________
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 31st March 2016