Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Sl.
No Cheque No. Date Net amount Date of drawl MB No.
1. 984181 28.07.2009 42761 03.08.2009 878/BK/2008
2. 95813 24.09.2009 87101 03.10.2009 878/BK/2008
3. 186564 17.05.2010 88643 20.05.2010 185/BK/2006
4. 291822 25.04.2011 62424 28.04.2011 185/BK/2006
5. 848664 17.08.2012 127038 25.08.2012 341/AK/2011 (refer: counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent dated 21.08.2014). Construction of the walls of the subject building continued in May, 2009 (refer: letter addressed by the 7th petitioner to the District Collector and the District Panchayat Officer on 01.06.2009). The very fact that measurement was recorded between 18.12.2008 to 20.07.2009 goes to show that construction of the subject building continued after the order of this Court dated 03.02.2009, and even after the contempt case was filed on 29.06.2009. While the subject building was constructed upto the lintel level prior to 17.07.2009, construction beyond the lintel level of the building continued after 17.07.2009 (refer: counter-affidavits of respondents 10 and 11). Construction of the building was again undertaken during Dasara Vacations of October, 2009 till the school reopened, and was thereafter continued in the month of May, 2010 when the school was closed for summer vacations. (refer: counter affidavit of the 5th respondent-headmaster dated 20.09.2013). Construction of the building continued even in November, 2009 (refer: counter-affidavit of the 4th respondent-

After receipt of a copy of the order of this Court on 19.02.2009, Sri N.Rameshwar Raju, the 2nd respondent, directed the Head Master of the school, by letter dated 25.03.2009, to stop the illegal construction work. A copy of the letter dated 01.06.2009, addressed by the 7th petitioner to the District Collector, was also submitted to the District Educational Officer on the same day i.e. on 01.06.2009. On receipt of the petitioners letter dated 01.06.2009, the second respondent addressed a letter to the Sub-Inspector of Police on 11.06.2009, and to the Superintendent of Police on 12.06.2009 respectively asking them to stop the illegal construction. Just like the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent also remained content by addressing letters to the Head Master of the school and to the police officials. What is also a matter of concern is that, in his counter-affidavit, the 2nd respondent should suppress the fact that he had, by proceedings dated 09.10.2009, caused an enquiry. Neither the contents of the enquiry report nor the conclusion arrived at pursuant thereto have been placed on record. After the enquiry was caused on 09.10.2009, it would have come to light that construction was still being continued, and action should have been taken at least then. The fact that an enquiry was conducted was suppressed from this Court, as no action was taken even thereafter to stop construction. Government officials cannot absolve themselves of their obligations to comply with the order of the Court, and rest content by relegating their responsibility to their subordinates/others, merely by addressing letters asking them to comply with the order of the Court. While the initial efforts made by the 2nd respondent, in requesting the headmaster and police officials to comply with the order of the Court, is in order, his carelessness and negligence thereafter is evident from his omission to take action, despite receipt of the petitioners letter dated 01.06.2009, the filing of the contempt case on 29.06.2009, and the enquiry caused by him in October, 2009, is disconcerting. There is no material on record to show what action the 2nd respondent took after the contempt case was filed on 29.06.2009 complaining of continued violation of the order of this Court, and that the construction of the building was being continued even thereafter. It is clear that the 2nd respondent has also violated the order of this Court. His omission to comply with the order of the Court, not being casual or accidental or bonafide or unintentional or on account of genuine disability, would amount to wilful violation of the order dated 03.02.2009, and his having committed contempt of court.

It is evident from the letter of the petitioner to the 3rd respondent on 01.06.2009, and the photographs enclosed along with the contempt case, that construction of the building continued after the order of this Court dated 03.02.2009. The counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent refers to measurement, of the construction of the building, having been taken between 18.12.2008 and 20.07.2009. The counter-affidavits of respondents 10 and 11 show that the building was constructed upto lintel level by 17.07.2009. It is evident that the District Panchayat Officer has sought to suppress the fact that construction of the subject building continued even after the order of this Court dated 03.02.2009, and to mislead this Court by contending otherwise, only to avoid being punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. As the 3rd respondent, who was aware of the order of this Court dated 03.02.2009, and of its consequences and implications, has failed to ensure its compliance and, in addition, has sought to mislead this Court, he must be held to have wilfully disobeyed the order of Court and to have committed contempt of court.

Since Sri N. Rameshwar Raju, the 2nd respondent, did not play an active part in the construction of the subject building, and his role was of passive indifference and neglect. It would suffice, instead of sentencing him to undergo imprisonment, to impose on him the punishment of sentence of fine of Rs.2,000/-. While Sri K.Rajamouli, the 5th respondent, may not have played an active role in the construction of the building, his passive role in not taking any action, despite being aware of construction being continued, would necessitate his being punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. While a sentence of imprisonment may not be justified, it would be just and proper that he is imposed the punishment of sentence of fine of Rs.2,000/-. Considering the fact that Smt.K.Lalitha (the 6th respondent) is working as an Anganwadi Aaya in Challoor village, and it does appear that she was merely a figure head President of the Mahila Sangham, it would suffice if, instead of imprisonment, punishment of sentence of fine of Rs.1000/- is imposed on her. As Smt.G.D.Aruna, IAS, the 8th respondent, did not play an active part in the construction of the building, and as she has asserted that she neither sanctioned any work nor did she release any funds during her tenure as the District Collector, Karimnagar, she is imposed the punishment of sentence of fine of Rs.2,000/-.