- In Ajay Kumar Parasaramka vs Pradeep Kumar Rath the Andhra Pradesh HC has held that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot test the legality or the correctness of the order or give any additional direction or delete any direction.
- In the instant case, a contempt case was filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the petitioners for the disobedience of an order passed by the HC. The HC had passed an interim direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question.
- It was alleged by the petitioners that after the passing of the interim order, the respondents had made an attempt to demolish the buildings of the petitioners in violation of the Court orders. Aggrieved, the present contempt petition had been filed.
- The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the petitioners had occupied the land illegally. The same was allotted to the railways and was covered with wild growth, and the respondents/revenue authorities, alongwith the railway department, had demolished the unauthorised construction and erected caution boards stating that the land belongs to the Government.
- The Hon’ble HC observed that once when the petitioners were in the possession of the land as encroachers, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 should have been followed for the removal of the encroachment. The act of demolishing the compound wall to remove the encroachers from the Government land despite an interim order and without adherence to the procedure amounted to a Civil Contempt, defined under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act as any wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree. order , direction, writ or other process of Court or any wilful breach of any undertaking given to the Court.
- Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble SC in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs C. Muddaiah (2007) SCC the HC observed that once an order is passed, it is the duty of the Court to implement the same without giving any interpretation, and if the order is contrary to law, they are at liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the appellate authority. But without preferring an appeal, the respondent cannot interpret the order and give a different meaning to it. This act had been held to be illegal in the impugned judgement.
- The HC also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Prithawi Nath Ram vs State of Jharkhand and ors. (2004) SCC wherein the Apex Court had observed that while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is concerned with the question as to whether the earlier decision of the Court had been complied with or not. The Court cannot examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and take a view which is different from the earlier decision.
- It was observed that if any party feels that the order is wrong or against rules or its implementation is not feasible or is impractical, it should either approach the Court that passed the order or invoke the Appellate jurisdiction. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be invoked in contempt proceedings. While dealing with the application for contempt, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non compliance of which is alleged. It cannot say what should or should not have been done.
- Thus, in light of the above, the Court allowed the petition, and ruled that there had been an utter disobedience of the order in the case at hand. The Tehsildar in the case, was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 6 months, and a fine of Rs. 2000/-.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
