IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE No.6916 of 2023
Contempt case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt
of Courts
Act 1971 to punish the Respondents herein for willfully
and deliberately
violating the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 12.05.2023
passed in W.P.
No. 13125 of 2023.
Between:
S. Venkatesh, S/o. S. Pandu Ranga Rao, Age 56 years,
Occ: Revenue
Officer, Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation, Machilipatnam,
Krishna
District.
...Petitioner
AND
Sri G. Chandraiah, Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipal
Corporation, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner
: Sri T S N Sudhakar
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri K Sreedhara Murthy
(SC for
Municipalities and Municipal Corporation services)
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE No.6916 OF 2023
ORDER:-
1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining alleged
willful
disobedience in implementing the order dated 12.05.2023
passed by
this Court in W.P.No.13125 of 2023.
2. The petitioner filed W.P No.13125 of 2023 to declare
the action of
the 3'^^ respondent in not implementing the orders
vide proceedings
Roc.No.R-4905666/2021/C1/C2 dated 17.10.2022 issued
nd
by the 2
respondent and not allowing the petitioner to joining
report as Revenue
Officer as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper
insubordination and
violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution
of India and
consequently direct the 3'^ respondent to allow the
petitioner to joining
report as revenue Officer with all consequential benefits.
3. Upon hearing both the parties, on 12.05.2023, this
Court
disposed of the writ petition with the following direction;
Having heard the submissions made by iearned counsei
for both
the parties, this Court is of the considered view that
the present
Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner
to approach
the 3^^ respondent seeking reinstatement of his services
in view of
the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the 2'^^ respondent
within a
NV,J
CC No.6916of 2023
2
period of ten (10) days from today. Thereupon, the 3'^ respondent
shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders
within a
period of two (02) weeks, thereafter.”
4. Learned counsel submits that, after obtaining order
from this
Court, the petitioner submitted representation along
with order copy
to the respondent on 26.05.2023. But, the respondent
did not
implement the orders of this Court inspite of receiving
the copy of the
order of this Court
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, without
proper
consideration and without taking into account of the
Municipal laws
and contrary to the orders of this Hon’ble Court, the
respondent
passed orders vide proceedings Roc.No.1289/2022-C1
dated
13.06.2023 not permitting the petitioner to duty on
the ground of
incidents of irregularities. Further, the respondent
informed the
petitioner to approach the Commissioner & Director
of Municipal
Administration, A.P., Vaddeswaram, Guntur.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
the petitioner
submitted a representation to the Commissioner & Director
of
Municipal Administration, wherein, the Commissioner
& Director of
NV,J
CCNo.6916 of 2023
3
Municipal Administration vide
proceedings Roc.No.R-
4905666/2021/C1/C2 dated 06.07.2023 found fault with
the action of
the respondent and directed to comply with the orders
dated
17.10.2022. But, till date, the same is not complied
by the
respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
respondent
being aware about the direction issued by this Court,
obviously for
reasons best known to him, did not implement the order
of this Court
which amounts to contempt, as defined under Section
2(b) of the
Contempt of Courts Act and that the respondent is liable
for
punishment as per Section 12 of Contempt of Courts
Act and
requested to punish him in accordance with law.
8. Respondent - Former Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Machilipatnam and presently working as Additional Commissioner,
Eluru Municipal Corporation filed counter affidavit
stating that,
responding to the reinstatement orders issue by the
Commissioner &
Director of Municipal Administration, Guntur dated
17.10.2022, the
Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Machilipatnam submitted
a letter
stating that the petitioner did not work anywhere except
in
NV,J
CCNo.6916 of 2023
Machilipatnam Municipality since his date of appointment
and due to
his long standing of continuous service in Machilipatnam
Municipality
leaded and caused to receiving so many complaints and
leveled
so
many allegations against the petitioner during his
working tenure in
Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation and the Mayor requested
the
Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration
to transfer the
petitioner to any other suitable Municipality as per
his equivalent
cadre of Revenue Officer (Grade-Ill) whereas the Machilipatnam
Municipal Corporation, Revenue Officer present Cadre
is Grade-1
Revenue Officer and to avoid complaints and allegations
of long
standing continuation and irregularities said to have
been committed
and pointed out by the ACB Authorities.
9. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that,
in view of the
above circumstances and in obedience to the orders
of the Hon’ble
Court dated 12.05.2023, the respondent — Commissioner,
Municipal
Corporation, Machilipatnam passed appropriate orders
dated
09.06.2023 within a period of two weeks, not permitting
the petitioner
to join and informing the petitioner to approach the
Commissioner &
Director of Municipal Administration, Guntur, as such,
there is no
NV,j’
CC No.6916 of 2023
5
disobedience of the orders of this Court and prayed
to close the
Contempt Case against him.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
respondent/contemnor wantonly and intentionally failed
to
pass
appropriate orders considering the order passed by
the Commissioner
& Director of Municipal
Administration in Roc.No.R-
4905666/2021/C1/C2 dated 17.10.2022 and thus, the respondent
in his
official capacity is liable for punishment in terms
of Sections 10 to 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act.
11. The other contention of the petitioner is that the
respondent did
not implement the orders of this Court dated 12.05.2023
wantonly,
deliberately with an intention to deprive this petitioner
from
discharging his duties, as an employee in the Machilipatnam
Municipal Corporation. Whereas, learned counsel for
the respondent
contended that the order of this Court was implemented
in it’s letter
and spirit.
12. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents denied
intentional or deliberate violation of the direction
issued by this Court.
He would submit that, upon receiving the orders of
this Court dated
NV,J
CCNo.6916 of 2023
12.05.2023, the respondent passed appropriate orders
with a period
of two weeks vide proceedings dated 09.06.2023 not
permitting the
petitioner to join his duties, in view of his long
standing alleged
irregularities said to have been committed and pointed
out by the
ACB Authorities and further informed the petitioner
to approach the
Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration,
Guntur and
requested to dismiss the contempt case against the
respondent.
13. The contention of the respondent is that, in obedience
of the
orders passed by this Court on 12.05.2023, the respondent
-
Commissioner, Machilipatnam
Municipal Corporation passed
appropriate orders within a period of two weeks vide
proceedings in
Roc.No.1298/2022-C1 dated 09.06.2023 not permitting
the petitioner to
join duty and informing the petitioner to approach
the Commissioner &
Director of Municipal Administration, Vaddeswaram,
Guntur, for further
orders. Thus, the respondent did not violate the orders,
muchless,
willfully or intentionally and thereby, not liable
for contempt. The
respondent also made several allegations with regard
to conduct of the
petitioner, but they are not relevant for the purpose
of deciding the
controversy in the contempt case, more particularly,
to decide whether
the respondent willfully, deliberately or intentionally
violated the orders
NV,J
CC No.6916 of 2023
7
of this Court dated 12.05.2023. Therefore, they are
not required to be
extracted in the present contempt case.
14. Heard Sri T.S.N. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the
petitioner
and Sri Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel appearing
for the
respondent and perused the record.
15. Before adverting to the facts of the case, I find it
apposite to
narrate the legal position for better appreciation
of the case and
application of law.
16. The Contempt of Court is defined under Section 2(a)
as
follows: "contempt of court means, civil contempt or
criminal
contempt", Whereas clause (b) of Section 2 defines
Civil Contempt
as “willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ
or other process of a court or willful breach of an
undertaking given to
a court.”
17. The Contempt jurisdiction is not conferred on the Subordinate
Courts and it is only conferred on the Court of record,
in view of
Article 215 of the Constitution of India. According
to it, the High Court
shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers
of such a
NV,J
CC No.6916 of 2023
Court, including the power to punish for contempt of
itself, The
jurisdiction of contempt is independent jurisdiction
of its original
nature. Therefore, this Court is competent to exercise
such power to
punish a person, who is guilty of contempt and this
jurisdiction is
enjoyed by Courts, is only for the purpose of upholding
the
jurisdiction of the judicial system that exists. While
exercising this
power, the Court must not react by the emotion, but
must act
judicially. Contempt proceedings are intended to ensure
compliance
of the orders of the Court and strict adherence of
rule of law. Once,
the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings
are satisfied, the
Court shall initiate action, uninfluenced by the nature
of direction in a
pending lis before the Court vide judgment in Priya
Gupta and
others vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family
Welfare and others^). Contempt jurisdiction enjoyed
by the Courts
IS
only for the purpose of upholding the majesty of judicial
system that
exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must
not be hyper
sensitive or swang by emotions, but must act judicially
(Vide;
^2012(12)SCALE 289
NV,J'
CC No.6916 of 2023
9
Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal vs. SK.
Monobbor Hossain^).
18. Contempt” is disorderly conduct of contemnor causing
serious
damage to the institution of justice administration.
Such conduct, with
reference to its adverse effects and consequences,
can be
discernibly classified into two categories one which
has a transient
effect on the system and/or the person concerned and
is likely to
wither by the passage of time while the other causes
permanent
damage to the institution and administration of Justice
(Vide;
Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and others^).
19. As seen from the order of the Commissioner & Director
of
Municipal Administration, Guntur dated 17.10.2022,
it is clear that the
order of suspension passed against the petitioner -
S. Venkatesh,
Revenue Officer is revoked and he was reinstated into
service.
pending examination of the explanation dated 04.10.2022
submitted
by him. The operative portion of the order of the Commissioner
&
Director of Municipal Administration dated 17.10.2022
is as follows:
^ (2012)3 SCALE 534
^ (2011) 6 SCALE 220
NV,J
CCNo.6916 of 2023
10
“In view of the above, the suspension of Sri S.
Venkatesh, Revenue Officer (u/s), Municipal Corporation,
Machilipatnam, is hereby revoked and reinstated into
service pending examination of the explanation dated
04.10.2022 submitted by Sri S. Venkdtesh, Revenue
Officer (u/s). Municipal Corporation, Machilipatnam."
20. Since the respondent herein did not implement the order
passed by the Commissioner & Director of Municipal
Administration
dated 17.10.2022, the petitioner filed the present
contempt
case.
21. It is to be noted that this Court passed order on 12.05.2023
directing this petitioner to approach
the Commissioner,
Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation for implementation
of the order
and directed the Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipal
Corporation to pass appropriate orders, keeping in
view the orders
passed by the Commissioner & Director of Municipal
Administration
dated 17.10.2022.
Accordingly, the petitioner approached the
respondent - Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipal
Corporation.
But, the respondent issued proceedings in Roc.No.1298/2022-C1
dated 13.06.2023 not permitting the petitioner to join
and informed
the petitioner to approach Commissioner & Director
of Municipal
NV,J
CCNo.6916 of 2023
11
Administration for further orders. The operative portion
of the order
dated 13.06.2023 reads as follows:
In obedience to the Hon’ble High Court orders in
W.P.No.13125 of 2023 dated 12.05.2023 vide reference
4^^
cited, and as per the representation submitted by Sri
S.
Venkatesh, Revenue Officer dated 27.05.2023 vide reference
5^'’ cited, appropriate orders were passed stating
that due to
long standing stay of the individual in Machilipatnam
Municipal Corporation such type of irregularities and
loss of
revenue of collection were detected by the ACB authorities
and there is every possibility to continue such type
of
incidents like causing of financial loss of collection
of
Revenue in this Municipal Corporation if Sri S. Venkatesh,
Revenue Officer is continued for further period even
after
detection of certain irregularities by the ACB authorities
and
also Sri S. Venkatesh is a Ill-Category Revenue Officer
where
the sanction post of Revenue Officer of Machilipatnam
Municipal Corporation is the post of Category-ll Revenue
Officer and the individual is not entitled to post
In Category-ll
Revenue Officer in Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation.
In view of the above circumstances, I request the
Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration
to kindly
post Sri S. Venkiatesh, Revenue Officer category-ill
to any
other Municipality or Municipal Corporation in the
interest of
smooth administration and to avoid further allegations
&
irregularities expected to be taken place."
NV,J
CC No.6916 of 2023
12
22. It appears from the orders of the respondent that he
not only
violated the orders of this Court dated 12.05.2023,
but also violated the
order of the higher authority dated 17.10.2022. The
respondent is only
an implementing authority to permit the petitioner
to join his duties and if
for any reason, no post in Category-Ill Revenue Officer
is available, the
respondent would have addressed a letter to the Commissioner
&
Director of Municipal Administration for transfer of
the petitioner to
any
other station/place. Instead of implementing the order,
the respondent,
by considering the letter dated 29.03.2023 addressed
by the
Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation, even without making
any
reference in the proceedings, did not permit the petitioner
to join in
service as Revenue Officer of Machilipatnam Municipal
Corporation.
Thus, the act of the respondent in passing the proceedings
in
Roc.No.1298/2022-C-1 dated 13.06.2023, directing this
petitioner to
approach the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration
for
appropriate orders is not only an intentional avoidance
to implement the
order of this Court.
23. The Municipal Corporation is a local authority, Mayor
is only a
People’s Representative, but not the administrative
head. Even
NV,J
CCNo.6916of 2023
13
otherwise, when this Court issued a direction to the
respondent to pass
appropriate order, keeping in view the order passed
an
by
Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration
dated 17.10.2022,
despite revoking the suspension order passed by the
authorities, the
action of the respondent in not implementing the order
of this Court
clearly amounts to intentional and deliberate violation
of the order not
only of this Court, but also higher authorities.
24. In the present facts of the case. Respondent with scant
respect to
the order passed by this Court dated 12.05.2023, did
not permit the
petitioner to join duty. The admission made in the
counter affidavit filed
by the Respondent is suffice to hold that. Respondent
violated
or
disobeyed the order of this Court willfully, knowing
the ill-consequences
that flow from such violation i.e. conscious violation
of the order of this
Court dated 12.05.2023, which amounts to violation
of Rule of Law.
Therefore, the act of Respondent - Commissioner, Machilipatnam
Municipal Corporation by his disorderly conduct caused
serious damage
to the institution of justice administration. Such
conduct, with reference
to its adverse effects and consequences, can be discernibly
classified
into two categories one which has a transient effect
on the system
and/or the person concerned and is likely to wither
away by the passage
NV,J
CCNo.6916of2023
14
of time while the other causes permanent damage to
the institution and
administration of justice, (vide Kalyaneshwari vs.
Union oflndia^)
25. When once an order is passed, it is the duty of the
authorities
to implement the same without giving any interpretation
and if the
order is contrary to law, they are at liberty to file
appropriate appeal
before the appellate authority. But, without preferring
an appeal, the
respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and
give different
meaning to the order passed by the Court, which is
sought to be
implemented, as directed by this Court. Such act of
the
respondent/contemnor is illegal in view of the law
declared by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing
Board
vs. C. Muddaiah^, wherein, it is held as follows;
31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction
is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed
and
implemented without any reservation. If an order passed
by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored,
there
will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom
such order is made has grievance, the only remedy
available to him is to challenge the order by taking
appropriate proceedings known to law. But It cannot
be
made ineffective by not complying with the directions
on a
specious plea that no such directions could have been
Issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of
such
(2011) 6 SCALE 220
^(2007) 7 see 689
NV,J
CCNo.6916 of 2023
15
argument would result in chaos and confusion and would
seriously affect and impair administration of justice.
The
argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and
must
be rejected.
32. The matter can be looked at from another angle
also. It
is true that while granting a relief in favour of a
party, the
Court must consider the relevant provisions of law
and
issue appropriate directions keeping in view such
provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the
facts and in the circumstances, the Court may issue
necessary directions in the larger interest of justice
keeping
view the principles of justice, equity and good
in
conscience. Take a case, w3here ex facie injustice
has
been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact
that he
is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been
given to
him. His representations have been illegally and
unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a
Court of
Law. The Court is convinced that gross injustice has
been
done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with
oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The Court,
in the
circumstances, directs the Authority to extend all
benefits
which he would have obtained had he not been illegally
deprived of them. Is it open to the Authorities in
such case
to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally
deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding
of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take
undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate
injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged.
We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of
statutory provision, normal rule is 'no work no pay'.
In
appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law may, nay
must, take into account all the facts in their entirety
and
pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The
Court, in a given case, may hold that the person u/as
willing
to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed
to do
so. The Court may in the circumstances, direct the
Authority to grant him all benefits considering 'as
if he had
worked'. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute
proposition of law that no direction of payment of
NV,J
CC No.6916 of 2023
16
consequential benefits can be granted by a Court of
Law
and if such directions are issued by a Court, the Authority
can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed
by
the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in
the
present case). The bald contention of the appellant-Board,
therefore, has no substance and must be rejected.
26. The same view is expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in
Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others^,
where the
Court held that, while dealing with an application
for contempt, the Court
is really concerned with the question whether the earlier
decision which
has received its finality had been complied with or
not. It would not be
permissible for a Court to examine the correctness
of the earlier
decision which had not been assailed and to take the
view different than
what was taken in the earlier decision If any party
concerned is
aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong
or against rules
or
its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible,
it should always
either approach to the Court that passed the order
or invoke jurisdiction
of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the
order cannot be
urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order
has to be
obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render
the party liable for
contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt
the Court
® (2004) 7 see 261
NV,J
CC No.6916 of 2023
17
cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of
which is alleged It
cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness
or
otherwise of the order or give additional direction
or delete any
direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction
while dealing with
an application for initiation of contempt proceedings.
The same would
be impermissible and indefensible.
27. In The State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumar^, the
Hon’ble
Supreme Court while dealing with violation of order
passed under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Court, held that,
a party
proceeded against Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C for
disobedience of
an order of injunction cannot be held to have willfully
disobeyed the
order provided two conditions are satisfied viz., (1)
that the order was
ambiguous and was reasonably capable of more than one
interpretation
(2) that the party being proceeded against in fact
did not intend to
disobey the order, but conducted himself in accordance
with his
interpretation of the order. The question whether a
party has understood
an order in a particular manner and has conducted himself
in
accordance with such a construction is primarily one
of-fact, and where
the materials before the Court do not support such
a state of affairs, the
"air 1961 see 221
NV,J
CC No.6916 of 2023
18
Court cannot attribute an innocent intention based
on presumptions, for
the only reason, that ingenuity of Counsel can discover
equivocation in
the order which is the subject of enforcement. Though
undoubtedly
proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C have
a punitive
aspect - as is evident from the contemner being liable
to be ordered to
be detained in civil prison, they are in substance
designed to effect the
enforcement of or to execute the order. This is clearly
brought out by
their identity with the procedure prescribed by Order
XXI Rule 32 of
C.P.C for execution of a decree for permanent injunction.
No doubt the
State Government not being a natural person could not
be ordered to
be detained in civil prison. On the analogy of Corporations;
for which
special provision is made in Order XXXIX Rule V C.P.C,
but beyond
that, both when a decree for a permanent injunction
is executed and
when an order of temporary injunction is enforced the
liability of the
State Government to be proceeded against appears to
us clear.
28. While dealing with an application for contempt, the
Court is really
concerned with the question as to whether the earlier
decision which
has received its finality had been complied with or
not. This Court is
primarily concerned with the question of conduct of
the party who is
alleged to have committed default in complying with
the directions in the
NV,J
CCNo.6916 of 2023
19
judgment or order. If there is any ambiguity or indefiniteness
in the
order, it is for the concerned party to approach the
Higher Court, if
according to him/her the same is not legally tenable
and such a
question has necessarily to be agitated before the
Higher Court.
Assuming that a question arose about impossibility
of complying with
the order, if that was the case, atleast the respondent
could have done
was to assail correctness of the order/judgment before
the Higher
Court. But, the respondent and failed to comply with
the order of this
Court. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order
which in its
opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation
is neither
practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach
the Court that
passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate
Court. Rightness
or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt
proceedings.
Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting
an order of the
Court would render the party liable for contempt.
29. That apart. According to Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Civil
Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964, disobeying the order of the
Commissioner &
Director of Municipal Administration is nothing but
insubordination,
which amounts to misconduct. Therefore, the respondent
is not only
liable for punishment for Contempt of Court, but also
liable for
NV,J
CC No.6916 of 2023
20
disobeying the order of both the Court and higher authority
i.e
Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration.
30. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to
the present facts of the case, this Court can safely
conclude that
respondent Sri G.Chandraiah
Commissioner, Machilipatnam
Municipal Corporation ex facie committed Contempt of
Court
as
defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 and
liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Act.
However, it is left
open to the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration
to
initiate appropriate disciplinary
proceedings against the
respondent/contemnor, since such conduct would
amount to
misconduct and cannot be encouraged for smooth administration
in the
office. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the
respondent, in utter
disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated
12.05.2023,
consciously violated the order passed by this Court
and did not permit
him to join the petitioner into duty as Revenue Officer.
Such conduct
would not only impede the rule of law, but also cause
serious damage
to the judicial institution and judicial administration.
Therefore, such
conduct of the respondent cannot be encouraged by this
Court, taking
NV,J
CC No.6916 of 2023
21
lenient view against such person who caused serious
damage to the
judicial institution itself.
31. As discussed above, and in view of the findings recorded
by this
Court in the above paragraphs, Respondent - Commissioner,
Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation is liable for punishment
as per
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and
thereby he is
punished sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment
for a term of
six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees
two thousand
only).
32. In the result, contempt case is allowed, directing
Respondent -
Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipal Corporation to
undergo simple
imprisonment for a term of six (06) months and to pay
a fine of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
33.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if
any, shall
stand closed.
NV,J
CCNo.6916 of 2023
22
34. After dictating the above order,
learned counsel for
Respondent/Contemnor requested this Court to suspend
the above
order, so as to enable her to prefer an appeal.
35; At request of the learned counsel for the Respondent/
Contemnor, the above order is suspended for a period
of four (04)
weeks to prefer an appeal. In case no appeal is preferred
or no stay is
granted by the Appellate Court in the appeal if any
preferred,
Respondent/Contemnor shall surrender before Registrar
(Judicial), High
Court of Andhra Pradesh on 26.07.2024 before 05.00
p.m to undergo
sentence.
SD/- K TATA RAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The Registrar(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi.
2. Sri G. Chandraiah, Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipal
Corporation, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. (Special
Messenger/Speed Post)
3. One CC to Sri T S N Sudhakar, Advocate [OPUC]
and Municipal
4. One CC to Sri K Sreedhara Murthy (SC for Municipalities
Corporation services) [OPUC]
Andhra Pradesh.
5. The Section Officer, O.S. Section, High Court of
of Andhra Pradesh.
6. The Section Officer, Accounts Section, High Court
7. Three CD Copies
TK
sree
HIGH COURT
§
DATED:28/06/2024
ORDER
CC.No.6916 of 2023
ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT CASE