Sushrutha Educational Academy Society vs Rachel Chatterjee and another

The contempt case is filed alleging disobedience of the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.4599 of 1998 dated 19-2-1998.

In the writ petition it was the case of the petitioner that it made an application on 31-12-1996 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for grant of Essentiality Certificate for establishing a Dental College at Nalgonda. While its case was not considered and an application filed at later point of time by other persons were considered and permission was granted to establish a Dental College. Therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4599 of 1998 seeking directions to the respondents to consider the application for grant of Essentiality Certificate. This Court by an order dated 19-2-1998 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

"that the application of the petitioner dated 31-12-1996 for grant of Essentiality Certificate shall be considered in accordance with G.O.Ms. No.316, dated 22-6-1994 and appropriate orders should be passed by the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

Consequently, it appears that the inspection of the College was conducted on 204-1998 and the Committee also submitted the report to the Government. While so, on 13-5-1998amemo was issued stating that a Committee was already: constituted by the Government for considering the applications for grant of Essentiality Certificate and therefore the petitioner may submit the application as and when the Committee issues notification in the local news papers. Against this memo, the petitioner made a detailed representation on 30-5-1998 bringing to the notice that the action of the government amounts to violation of the orders of this Court. It is stated that the conduct of the respondents in not obeying the directions granted by this Court is., a deliberate violation on the part of the respondents and they should be punished for contempt of this Court.

In the counter 6fcd by the respondent, it is stated that after receipt of the order, the Director of Medical Education was requested to submit the report and the report was also submitted on 21-4-1998. However, it was noticed that the petitioner did not have its own hospital and made a request to utilise the Government hospital at Nalgonda. The State Government had not yet given the permission for such an arrangement. While the matter stood thus, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No.l28; dated 30-4-1998 constituting the Committee to decide the applications for grant of Essentiality Certificates and as per the said G.O. all the applications pending with the Government will be treated as not valid and the deposit sent with the applications will be returned forthwith to the concerned authorities. Therefore, the petitioner was informed to approach the Committee since pending applications were treated as invalid. In view of the constitution of the Committee, the jurisdiction to examine the claim of the applicants for establishment of the Medical and Dental Colleges stand transferred to the Committee which will examine the applications depending on their merits. It is also stated that since the regular Secretary was on foreign tour, the orders of this Court could not be implemented and tendered apology to this Court. However, the learned Addl. Advocate General stated that the application of the petitioner has also now been transferred to the Committee by proceedings dated 22-7-1998. Therefore, it is submitted by the respondents that no contempt has been committed.

The issue that arises for consideration is whether there is deliberate violation of the orders of this Court?

This Court on 19-2-1998 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to consider the application of the petitioner dated 31 -12-1996 for grant of Essential ity Certificate in terms of G.O.Ms. No.316, dated 22-6-1994 within a period of three weeks. The time fixed by this Court had already expired and no application was made for extention of time. But, however, it appears that the action was initiated to call for the report of the Committee which was submitted on 21-4-1998. Thereafter a memo was issued on 13-5-1998 directing the petitioner to make an application before Justice S.V. Maruthi Committee as and when advertisement is published in the National and Local News papers.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent in directing the petitioner to make an application to the Committee as and when advertisement is made, is contrary to the directions of this Court. A specific direction was issued by this Court to consider the case under G.O.Ms. No.316 and therefore by this process the respondents cannot disobey the orders of this Court, and that it is a clear case of contempt of this Court. The learned Counsel also submits that when the petitioner was intimated that his application is invalid and he was advised to make fresh application as and when notification is issued by the Committee, however, again the application was transmitted by the Government on 22-7-1998 to the Committee for consideration. This itself indicates that the respondents was not acting bona fide and that the intention to violate the order is writ at large. The learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the action was initiated on receipt of the order from this Court and a Community was constituted and a Report was also received on 21-4-1998. But, however, he submits that in the meanwhile a decision was taken by the Government to constitute a High Power Committee to consider these applications and therefore a letter was addressed to the High Court for nominating a Judge as a Chairman. On 30-4-1998 a G.O. was issued constituting a Committee. Therefore, the respondent bona fide thought that it would not be appropriate to consider the matter when the Committee was constituted on 30-4-1998 and thus the mistake if any committed by the respondent is a bona fide and it is not wilful. He also submits that even as per G.O.Ms. No.128, dated 30-4-1998 all the pending applications are to be treated as invalid but keeping in view the directions of this Court and the Report of the Committee and the application was transmitted to the Committee on 22-7-1998 and it is receiving the attention of the Committee. In the Additional affidavit filed by the respondent, the respondent tendered unconditional apology in case this Court finds that the order of this Court was not implemented.

7, I have given serious consideration to the matter. The application ought to have been considered as directed by this Court within the stipulated time. When the Government anticipated the delay in disposal of the matter as directed by this Court, it is incumbent on the part of the Government to have approached this Court for extention of time for implementation. Further, if changed circumstances, had taken place after the disposal of the writ petition, it was also open for the respondent to have approached this Court seeking appropriate modification to the order. But, the respondents have not chosen to take any such action in this direction and on the other hand on 13-5-1988 the petitioner was intimated that his application was invalid in view of the G.O.Ms. No.128, dated 304-1998 and that it shall made an application whenever the notification is issued by the Committee. But, however, realising the omission the respondents have forwarded the letter to the Committee on 22-7-1998. The learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the Committee has already seized of the matter and the appropriate action will be tak.en in due course of time. We are not concerned with the decision of the Committee. We are only concerned with whether the respondents have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court. The learned Addl. Advocate General clearly concedes that the respondent ought to have sought for the extension of the time and also brought to, the notice of this Court about the changed circumstances and that constituted an unintentional omission, but, yet, that cannot be construed as wilful act on the part of the respondents. By the time, the report of*the inspection Committee was received in the last week of April, 1998 the proposals for constituting a high power Committee was already initiated and it was in the final stages and on 30-4-1998 the order was issued constituting high power Committee. Therefore, the learned Govt. Pleader submits that there was neither intentional nor deliberate act on the part of the respondent. She was under the bona fide impression that it would not be fair for her to deal with the matter when the Committee was already constituted.

8, From the events narrated above, I find that the respondents failed to obtain extension of time for implementing the order nor the application for modification was filed in view of the constitution of the Committee. It is only after the contempt petition was filed and the matter was being argued, another petition came to be filed seeking modification of the order in the writ petition. When once the orders are issued by this Court directing the respondent to deal with the situation in a particular manner they are bound to do it or seek appropriate modifications. But, in this instant case, the respondent has to share the responsibility of not taking appropriate action. Though it is sought to be explained in the counter that the Secretary was, for some time, on a foreign tour and that the matter was under consideration or the Government or constituting a Committee, yet the respondent did not establish the transparency in dealing with the matter. Nothing could have prevented the respondents from approaching this Court either for extension of time or for modification, but waited till a contempt case is filed and then tried to set right the house. This type of attitude on the part of the respondent being an highly placed Officer at the helm of the affairs cannot be appreciated. This Court expects more positive response from the respondent to implement the orders of Courts in letter and spirit. The reason for not dealing with the matter may be bow fide, but, yet that would not permit the respondent to take a decision for herself which goes contrary to the directions of this Court. However, I find that by the time the Report was called for, a decision was already taken to constitute a high power Committee and the G.O. was issued on 30-4-1998. In such circumstances, I find that the respondent had acted in a bonafide manner. Not seeking extension of time nor modifications are only administrative omissions and having perceived unnoticed lapses she also tendered unconditional apology. Therefore, I do not find that the respondent had wilfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I find that the respondent has not committed contempt of this Court. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs.