AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Narayana, J.—The Contempt Case is filed praying to punish the respondents for willfully and deliberately flouting the orders passed in W.P.M.P. No. 17027 of 2006 in W.P. No. 13680 of 2006, dated 11.07.2006, and pass such other suitable orders.
This Contempt Application is filed praying for grant of stay of all further proceedings including conduct of elections insofar as Kodad Mandal of Nalgonda District is concerned, pending disposal of the contempt case and pass such other suitable orders.
The learned Advocate General had placed before this Court the proceedings bearing No.G/943/06, dated 15.07.2006, said to have been made by the fifth respondent.
This Court, in a batch of writ petitions, made an elaborate order making several observations. In the light of the limited time available, this Court is, prima facie, satisfied that there is an impossibility on the part of the respondents to comply with the directions issued by this Court. It is only a prima facie opinion, which is being expressed by this Court, since the matter may have to be decided at length after giving opportunity to the opposite parties to file the counter-affidavits in detail, and after taking into consideration all the aspects involved in this matter. Hence, this Court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to the proceedings, dated 15.07.2006, which is placed before this Court today. This Court, on 11.07.2006, made an order, and the relevant portion reads as under:
These W.P.M. Ps., are disposed of with a direction to review the reservations of Gram Panchayats in relation to the respective Mandals i.e, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District,Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District, Ghatakesar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, and after completing the said exercise, liberty is given to the respondents to further proceed in relation to the Gram Panchayat elections of the said Gram Panchayats.
It may be pertinent to note that after dictating the order, a request was made at 2.20 P.M., by Sri Saleem, representing Sri T.Niranjan Reddy that they were duly instructed to withdraw the writ petition No.13899 of 2006. The submission was recorded and the learned Counsel was permitted to withdraw the writ petition and accordingly the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case that on 14.07.2006 a copy of the order was received by the counsel at 10.00 P.M., and immediately thereafter the copy of the said order was communicated to the third respondent on the same day i.e, on 14.07.2006 at about 11.00 p.m., and subsequently on 15.07.2006 at about 9.00 A.M., the copy was communicated to the other respondents who had acknowledged the receipt of the same.
It is also stated that to their utter surprise and dismay, the respondent authorities, in spite of the receipt of the said order copy, received the nominations insofar as Kodad Mandal of Nalgonda District is concerned. It is stated that the acts of the respondents are contumacious and the respondents, being the authorities representing the State, are duty bound to honour and implement the orders passed by the Courts. But, in the instant case, in spite of receipt of the said order and having the knowledge of the directions of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, willfully and deliberately flouted the same and accepted the nominations of the candidates without completing the exercise of reviewing the reservations of Gram Panchayats and thus the respondents have rendered themselves liable for punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
As already referred to supra, this Court, taking into consideration several facts and circumstances, made an elaborate order and several specific observations were made in the said order.
In Offutt v. U.S. (1954) 348 US 11 Frank Furter,J observed that the court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for Contempt of Court, not in order to protect the dignity of the court against insult or injury as the expression "Contempt of Court" may seem to suggest, but to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage.
In In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemner), the Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court observed that the foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to delivery fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded.
In J. Vasudevan Vs. T.R. Dhananjaya, : it was observed that it has been a sad experience that due regard is not always shown even to the order of the highest Court of the Country. Now, if such orders are disobeyed, the effect would be that people would lose faith in the system of administration of justice and would desist from approaching the Court, by spending time, money and energy to fight their legal battle. If in such a situation mercy is shown, the effect would be that people would not knock the door of the Courts to seek justice, but would settle score on the streets, where muscle power and money power would win, and the weak and the meek would suffer. That would be a death knell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a fatal blow.
Article 215 of the Constitution of India specifies that every High Court shall be a Court of Record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Court of Record has the power to determine questions about its own jurisdiction Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, . Court of Record also has inherent power to punish for its contempt summarily Sukhdev Singh Sodhi Vs. The Chief Justice and Judges of The Pepsu High Court, . It is needless to say that the Court of Record has inherent powers to issue suitable directions to remedy injustice, in whatever form or whatever corner, they are to be detected, depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case.
In the light of the elaborate order made by this Court and in the light of the proceedings placed before this Court, this Court is prima facie satisfied that this is a matter to be considered at the appropriate stage after giving opportunity to the opposite parties to file counter-affidavits in detail. But, however, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court is of prima facie opinion that any slightest act done without complying with the orders of this Court would prima facie amount to contempt and no further opinion need be expressed at this stage, since the opposite parties may have to file their counter-affidavits.
Taking the over all facts and circumstances into consideration, the nature of the order passed by this Court and other specific observations made in the course of the order of this Court and also the specific stand taken by the petitioner in the affidavit, it would not be just and proper to permit the further proceedings to go on.
Hence, in the interest of justice, this Court directs stay of all further proceedings relating to the elections of Gram Panchayats so far as Kodad Mandal in Nalgonda District is concerned, until further orders. In the event of the opposite parties feeling urgency, they are at liberty to file counter- affidavits, even at an early date, for the purpose of passing appropriate further orders in this regard.