HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM C.C.No.534 of 2010 Date : 02-12-2015 Between:
K.R. Bharathi and others ..
Petitioners And M. Danakishore, District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. P. Gangarami Reddy Counsel for respondents : Mr. B. Mahender Reddy, Special Government Pleader (TS) The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) “The King is under no man, but under God and the law”. These golden words spoken to by the Chief Justice of England, Sir Edward Coke, and often repeated by Courts, we feel, are apt to be remembered in the context of the present case.
The brief facts leading to the institution of the present Contempt Case, unsavoury though, are as under :
Petitioner No.1 and 11 others sent a complaint that order dated 14-7-2000 in W.P.No.6371 of 1996 & batch filed for allotment of houses to them and other similarly situated persons who belong to weaker sections was not implemented, which was treated by the Hon’ble Sri G.S. Singhvi, Chief Justice, as he then was, as taken up W.P.No.24801 of 2006. After the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District has filed his counter affidavit, the Division Bench comprising the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the time and one of us (CVNR.,J) passed an order on 22-2-
2007, the material portion of which reads as under :
“With a view to check the correctness or otherwise of the contents of Annexure V of the counter affidavit, we deem it proper to appoint an advocate of this Court as Court Commissioner. Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, who is present in the Court and who has given consent for the purpose of carrying out spot inspection is appointed as Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner should visit the site on more than one occasion and submit report whether or not the 12 persons named in Annexure V are residing at the site.”
As directed by this Court, the Court-Commissioner has submitted his report dated 7-3-2007. On 23-4-2007, while taking the said report on file, the Division Bench has passed the following order:
“In compliance of order dated 22-02-2007 passed by this Court, Shri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Court Commissioner has submitted report dated 7-3- 2007. The said report is taken on record. A perusal of the report shows that the houses allotted in the name of weaker sections of the society have been occupied by antisocial elements.
District Collector, Ranga Reddy is directed to forthwith take steps for evicting the unauthorized occupants of the houses meant for weaker sections of the society and submit report to this Court within two months from today.”
By order dated 20-7-2007, the Division Bench Disposed of the Writ Petition. For better appreciation, the material part of the order is reproduced herein below:
“On 23-4-2007, the Court after perusing the report of Shri R. Radha Krishna Reddy (Court Commissioner) directed District Collector, Ranga Reddy to forthwith take steps for evicting the unauthorized occupants from the houses meant for weaker sections of the society and submit report to this Court within two months.
In compliance of the aforementioned order, District Collector, Ranga Reddy initiated action under Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 (for short, ‘the 1968 Act’). This exercise resulted in issuance of notices to 2320 persons who are said to have unauthorisedly occupied the houses meant for weaker sections of the society. In paragraphs 2 to 5 of the affidavit filed by him, Shri Praveen Prakash, Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy has averred as under:
“2. I submit that in compliance to the Orders of the Hon’ble High Court Dated : 23rd April 2007, Special Teams were constituted involving the staff of Municipal, District Manager, Housing and Revenue Officers for conducting door to door survey, and obtaining details of the occupants in houses meant for weaker section society.
3. I submit that the Special Teams have conducted door to door survey, and obtained the particulars of the occupants as listed in Annexure-1.
4. I submit that notices in Form-A under Section 1, Section-4 of Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1968 were issued to all the occupants numbering 2320 on 30.06.2007 to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from illegal encroachment of houses meant for weaker sections of society in Sy.No.107 of Suraram Village of Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Special counters have been opened at Tahsildar Office, Qutbullapur to receive replies to the notices from the occupants from 9.7.2007 to 14.7.2007. Out of 2320, replies from 1960 occupants have been received upto 14.7.2007.
5. I further submit that basing on the replies, and evidence submitted by the occupants, appropriate orders will to be passed under sub-section-2, Section 4 of A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 and a report will be submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.”
From the affidavit of the Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy, it is evident that action has already been taken for evicting the persons who are said to have unauthorisedly occupied the houses meant for weaker sections of the society. Hence, this taken up petition is disposed of with the direction to District Collector, Ranga Reddy to complete the exercise initiated under the 1968 Act within next two months and send report to this Court by the end of September, 2007. The Registry is directed to list the case before the Court as soon as the report of District Collector, Ranga Reddy is received.
While disposing of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, we deem it proper to make it clear that the persons to whom notices have been issued under the 1968 Act will be entitled to avail appropriate legal remedy against the adverse order, if any passed by the competent authority. The members of the weaker sections of the society shall also be free to avail appropriate legal remedy, if the concerned authorites fail to take steps for eviction of unauthorized occupants of the houses meant for them.”
If one has thought that the ordeals of the 12 complainants and scores of other bonafide allottees of the Government houses who are not allowed to occupy their respective houses by the lawless elements, would have ended, he is thoroughly mistaken. Indeed, the saga of their woes has compounded with the disposal of the Writ Petition. The matter came up before more than one Division Bench in one form or the other. The Division Bench comprising Dr.
G.Yethirajulu, J, and one of us (CVNR.,J), adjourned the case on 18-10-2008 and 7-11-2008 for filing of a report by the District Collector as directed in the final order dated 20-7- 2007. On 28-11-2008, the said Division Bench has perused the affidavit filed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District wherein it was mentioned that “orders of eviction of the unauthorized occupants were issued.” The Bench noted that as there was no mention in the said affidavit that the unauthorized occupants were physically evicted from the land, the respondent was directed to report compliance of physical eviction from the land. The case was accordingly adjourned to 29-12-2008 for reporting compliance of physical eviction. After the above mentioned order was passed, some unauthorized occupants have filed WPMP Nos.36378 and 37277 of 2008 for their impleadment in the Writ Petition. In the affidavits filed in support of these applications, they have stated that they have preferred appeals before the prescribed authority under the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1968 (for short “the 1968 Act”) and that the same were pending. Alleging willful violation of the final order passed by this Court in the taken up Writ Petition, the petitioners filed C.C.No.1744 of 2008. The implead applications and the Contempt Case were disposed of by the Division Bench by order dated 29-12-2008. In the said order, the Bench has taken note of the fact that the implead party petitioners have filed appeals. While directing those appeals to be disposed of within two months from the date of the order, without being influenced by the previous orders and more particularly order dated 28-11-2008 in the Writ Petition, a further direction was given to the respondents to take steps to physically evict such of those persons who have not preferred appeals under the 1968 Act. The Bench has also directed that subject to the result of the appeals preferred by the implead petitioners, the State Government officials shall act in accordance with the directions issued by this Court on 20-7-2007 while disposing of the Writ Petition. Despite the above orders, things remained stand still thereafter driving the petitioners to file the present Contempt Case i.e., C.C.No.534 of 2010, registered on 7-4-2010.
This Contempt Case began its voyage before a Division Bench comprising the then Hon’ble Chief Justice and Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. On 19-6-2012, the learned Advocate-General has taken notice for the respondents and sought time for filing counter affidavit. Therefore, the Bench has ordered notice before admission and adjourned the case by two weeks. Almost six months later, the Contempt Case was listed before another Bench comprising V. Eswaraiah and K.G. Shankar.,JJ. While admitting the Contempt Case, the Bench passed the following order on 4- 12-2012 :
“On 19-6-2012 notice before admission was ordered and the learned Advocate-General took notice for the respondents and sought time to file counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit has been filed till date.
It is stated that though the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, has addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, the necessary police force has not been provided for evicting the unauthorized persons who have occupied the houses constructed for allotment to the weaker sections of the society and to comply the order of this Court.
Therefore, the petitioners are permitted to implead the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad as 4th respondent in the contempt case.”
Following the admission of the Contempt Case, the respondents were present before the Court on 2-1-2013. While dispensing with their presence, the Bench has noted that the learned Advocate-General sought a month’s time for compliance of the orders, and adjourned the case to 4-2- 2013 with a direction to file status report as well as counter affidavit. On 4-2-2013, the Bench has taken note of the fact that neither the order in the Writ Petition was implemented nor status report was filed. The Bench strongly observed that it did not see any justification in the inaction of the respondents in implementing the order and adjourned the case to 4-3-2013 at the request of the learned Advocate- General for reporting compliance, with the further direction that if compliance is not reported, the respondents shall appear before the Court.
On 12-7-2013, the case came up before the present Bench. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that a Petition was filed vide WPMP (SR) No.16863 of 2013, seeking review of the order in W.P.No.24801 of 2006. Therefore, this Court felt that before deciding the Contempt Case, the said Review Petition needs to be disposed of. Accordingly, the Registry was directed to post the Review Petition along with the Contempt Case. In the affidavit filed by Smt. A. Vani Prasad, the then District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, she has pleaded helpless situation. It is apt to reproduce the relevant averments in her affidavit hereunder :
“It is submitted that on 28-06-2010 the eviction programme was organized by deputing the Tahsildars of Ibrahimpatnam, Uppal, Ghatkesar, Maheshwaram, Shamirpet and the Land Protection Wing of Collectorate with (200) labour, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Alwal have provided (500) Police Force. The CP, Alwal along with his ACP’s, CI’s and SI’s were present during eviction. The eviction process started at 6.45 A.M., on 28-06-2010. When the physical eviction process was going on at about 8.30 A.M. processions organized by all the political parties and others have gathered in heavy number and started resistance of eviction process. As the situation appeared to be unmanageable and mobs were becoming commotive, the eviction was stopped to avoid any untoward incidents. The officials have taken (93) quarters into the possession of the Government by physically evicting the occupants.”
While arguing the Review Petition, Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, the learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that though the State has tried its best to evict all the unauthorized occupants, it could evict only 93 of them in view of the stiff resistance put up by the Political Parties and the unauthorized occupants. He has further stated that the Socio-Economic Surveys held after the passing of the order by this Court revealed that even the unauthorized occupants were eligible for allotment of houses in their occupation. Upon considering these facts, this Court has dismissed the Review Petition by order dated 11-4-2014 with the following observations :
“In our opinion, the ground on which this Review Petition is filed is wholly meritless. In a welfare State, the State cannot resign itself to the whims and dictates of the lawless elements. The mighty State cannot express its helplessness in enforcing the judicial orders of the Constitutionsl Courts. Such a stand on the part of the State does not augur well in a Society governed by democratic principles and Rule of law. Whatsoever may be the nature of resistance that may come forth from persons, who have neither legal nor moral right to occupy public property, the State is bound to enforce the order of the Court in order to uphold the majesty of law and maintain orderliness in society. Therefore, we are thoroughly unconvinced with the ground on which the review is sought by the State and its functionaries.”
Following the dismissal of the Review Petition, the learned Special Government Pleader requested for time for implementation of order dated 20-07-2007, as modified by order dated 29-12-2008. Considering the said request, this Court opined that as the respondents failed to implement the order of this Court for an unduly long time, such a request can be considered only if they file an affidavit undertaking to implement the said order in a time bound manner. On the request of the learned Special Government Pleader to adjourn the case for filing such affidavit, the case was adjourned to 25-4-2014. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District has accordingly filed an affidavit wherein an undertaking was given that the order of this Court will be complied with within six months. While directing the Registry to place the said affidavit on the file of the Contempt Case, this Court felt that six months’ time sought was too long and therefore it has passed order on 25-4- 2014 granting four months’ time for eviction of all the unauthorized occupants and filing a report in the Registry while closing the Contempt Case with liberty to the petitioners to seek revival of the Contempt Case in the event of non-compliance of the said order.
The petitioners filed Contempt Application No.402 of 2015 for restoration of the Contempt Case by alleging that despite the expiry of much more than four months’ time stipulated by this Court for eviction of the unauthorized occupants, the respondents have failed to implement the undertaking given by them and the order passed by this Court. By a separate order, the said application is disposed of.
Mr. M. Raghunandan Rao, the present incumbent of the office of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, has filed his counter affidavit dated 20-8-2015. It is stated in the said counter affidavit that Teams were drafted to collect the details of the present residents of the Government quarters in the prescribed proforma. A tabular statement was given in the affidavit, a perusal of which shows that there were in all 1501 encroachers. He has further stated that leaving the original allottees numbering 354 in occupation of the Government quarters, Form-A notices under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the 1968 Act were issued by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Qutbullapur to others on 30-7-2014 giving them seven days’ time, in order to take up eviction of the unauthorized occupants; that in response to the said notices some of the occupants have submitted their explanations duly enclosing house site patta certificates, sale deeds, bills showing payment of electricity charges, water taxes etc., which were scrutinized; that it was found that all the occupants are not the original allottees and their occupation is illegal; and that accordingly eviction orders under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1968 Act in Form-B were passed and the same were served on the concerned. The counter affidavit further stated that one Smt. R. Nagamani w/o. R.M. Raju and 147 others have filed W.P.No.29690 of 2014 before this Court against the State of Telangana, the District Collector and the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal, against the eviction orders dated 21-8-2015 and by order dated 9-10-2014 this Court directed the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to ensure that all the 482 purchasers and 47 tenants shall be got evicted, including the 93 persons who have re- encroached, and file necessary report on or before 31-10- 2014. It was further stated that in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 14-7-2000 in W.P.No.6371 of 1996 and batch, dated 23-4-2007 in taken up W.P.No.24801 of 2006, dated 4-2-2013 and 25-4-2014 in C.C.No.534 of 2010 and dated 9-10-2014 in W.P.No.29690 of 2014, the Additional Mandal Revenue Inspector & Village Revenue Officer, Suraram village were directed to evict the illegal occupants from the 60 sq. yard Government quarters of Suraram village, Qutbullapur Mandal vide Memo dated 29-4-2015 of the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal, and to handover the same, under a cover of panchanama, to the petitioners in W.P.No.6371 of 1996 and batch; that in compliance of the above mentioned orders, quarter Nos.150, 61 and 65 were handed over to three individuals, namely, A. Sanjeeva Rao, Anisha Begum and I. Violet; that while evicting certain original encroachers, namely, Jyothi and two others, the said encroachers have tried to obstruct their eviction, as a result of which law and order problem has arisen and that efforts are being made to evict all the encroachers with the help of the Police and by convincing all the local residents. Based on these averments, the District Collector has prayed for allowing further time to complete the process.
On 21-8-2015, this Court has perused the said counter affidavit and also considered the submissions of Mr. B. Mahender Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for the Advocate-General that all out efforts were being made by the respondents to implement the orders of this Court by evicting the unauthorised occupants and that reasonable time may be allowed to them for the said purpose. Accordingly, this Court has adjourned the case by two weeks to enable the respondents to report further progress made in the eviction of the unauthorized occupants by filing an affidavit. It was further directed that in the affidavit to be filed by respondent No.1, the dates on which the unauthorised occupants are evicted and their names, shall be mentioned. Accordingly, a further affidavit was filed by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 7-10-2015 wherein it is inter alia stated as under :
“It is submitted that as per orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated: 21.08.2015, in Contempt Case in C.C.No.534/2010 [6] Teams headed by Tahsildars along with 20 Police Officers, one Deputy Tahsildar, one Mandal Revenue Inspector, seven Village Revenue Officers, two carpenters, one Videographer and ten labours for each team have been formed and conducted eviction programme on 06.10.2015 from 8.00 A.M. onwards and evicted [190] encroachers forcibly under heavy protest from the encroachers by taking Police support and sealed the evicted houses with locks and with wooden bars [Reapers] under cover of Panchanama. There was lot of protest from the weaker section colony people of Suraram, the entire Revenue machinery along with police force have tried to evict the illegal/unauthorised encroachers of Suraram 60 sq. yds., Weaker Section Colony of Qutbullapur Mandal. The entire process of eviction has been videographed. Further, it is submitted that sufficient Police force has been deployed along with Vajra Modern Police Vehicle under the supervision of the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division, the 2nd respondent herein, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Balanagar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pet-Basheerabad. It is also submitted that 2 fire engines, 2 ambulances, 4 water tankers and mobile medical camps at the location has been arranged as a precautionary measure. It is submitted that in compliance with the orders of this Hon’ble Court, a list of the evicted unauthorized/illegal occupants of the Government Quarters in Sy.No.107 of Suraram Weaker Section Colony, Qutbullapur Mandal is submitted herewith.”
Surprisingly, instead of explaining their failure to evict the over-whelming majority of the encroachers, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in his counter affidavit, has prayed for closing of the Contempt Case. Anguished at the attitude displayed by the District Collector, this Court, on 9- 10-2015, passed the following order:
“Mr. N. Raghunandan Rao, District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, has filed counter affidavit dt. 7.10.2015, wherein he has inter alia stated that on 6.10.2015, 190 encroachers were forcibly evicted.
Indeed, this Court has extended the time for the respondents to evict as many as 1501 illegal occupants, at least on four earlier occasions. It is a matter of great regret that despite highly liberal approach of the Court displayed towards the respondents, they are still not implementing the order of this Court. This Court feels that the respondents do not deserve further latitude. However, as a last chance, the case is adjourned to 06.11.2015.
By the next date of hearing, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, shall file an affidavit enumerating further steps taken for eviction of the remaining unauthorised occupants and also indicate the peremptory time schedule within which the respondents will complete the eviction process. He shall also be personally present in the Court on the next date of hearing. It is made clear that this Court will not show any further lenience to the respondents, in future.”
The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, has filed another affidavit dated 5-11-2015 wherein after reproducing the averments contained in his previous counter affidavit dated 7-10-2015, he has further averred that the present policy of the Government of Telangana as evinced in G.O.Ms.No.58 and G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 30-12-2014 is regularization of encroachments on unobjectionable Government land and ceiling surplus land in favour of eligible persons who have encroached by way of functional units before 02-06-2014; that apart from the same, the Government has also come out with a policy, namely, Building and Layout Regularization Scheme; and that the Government is also committed to providing affordable housing to the poor free of cost by giving them double bedroom houses. It is further stated that out of the 2409 occupants, 354 of them are original allottees and 2019 are unauthorized but eligible occupants and that in pursuance of the above policy of the Government, almost all the occupants have filed applications for regularization of their occupation under G.O.Ms.No.58 and that barring 13 applicants who are above the Poverty Line, all the applicants are eligible for regularization of their unauthorized occupations. It is further stated that in view of the present Government policy to provide housing to all the eligible persons, it has proposed preparation of an action plan for providing houses to all of them who come under the Below Poverty Line category and that completion of the entire exercise and accommodating them in the Government sponsored housing scheme is a time taking process and that if these people are evicted now, they will become shelter less and there may be law and order problem. The answering respondent further stated that he is a law abiding citizen having great respect and highest regard for the Court, and that he has no intention to disobey or violate the orders of this Court. He has accordingly prayed to allow regularization of the encroachments within the confines of the Government policy or give 12 months’ time to complete the entire process of shifting the occupants and accommodating the eligible Below Poverty Line persons under the Government sponsored Housing Scheme.
This counter affidavit was taken on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court reserved the case for Judgment on 6-11-2015.
The detailed conspectus of the facts referred to above proves beyond any cavil of doubt that both the successive governments, i.e., the combined State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana, which was formed with effect from 02.06.2014, have not shown their will to implement the orders of this Court. Under the threat of the successive contempt cases, they have made a pretence of implementation without showing their bona fide intentions for such implementation. It is quite evident from the affidavit of Smt. A. Vani Prasad, the then District Collector, that the State was rest content with physical eviction of 93 unauthorized occupants on 28.06.2010 and 251 more on 28.02.2013, and without regard to non-eviction of about 1200 unauthorised occupants, she requested for closing the contempt case by pleading that a serious law and order problem arose during the eviction process and that the situation was found unmanageable.
As narrated herein before, after formation of the State of Telangana, Sri M. Raghunandan Rao, the present incumbent of the office of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in his counter affidavit filed in the contempt case on 20.08.2015, while narrating the steps taken by the administration of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh, referred to proceedings dt.10.08.2015 directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the Village Revenue Officer, Suraram Village, to evict the unauthorized occupants and handover possession to the allottees, and requested for allowing further time to complete the process. Later, in his affidavit dt.07.10.2015 the Collector reported that on 06.10.2015, 190 encroachers were evicted, but in the same way as Smt. Vani Prasad requested the Court to close the contempt case in her affidavit filed in March, 2013, the present incumbent has also made this strange request without realizing his responsibility that the State has a sacred duty to implement the orders of this Court which have attained finality, by evicting all the rest of the unauthorized occupants, who far too outnumber the encroachers evicted thus far. That, the State had no inclination to evict the unauthorized occupants and whatever they have done so far by evicting a few unauthorized occupants was an eyewash, is thoroughly reflected in the last of the counter affidavits filed by the District Collector on 05.11.2015. This counter was filed in the wake of the order passed by this Court on 09.10.2015 expressing its deep anguish at the apathy being shown by the State in the implementation of the orders of this Court. The official respondents had about four weeks time after the case was adjourned on 09.10.2015 and before the said counter affidavit was filed. Yet, no further effort was made to evict any of the unauthorized occupants after they have purportedly evicted 190 encroachers on 06.10.2015, i.e., three days before the case was adjourned on 09.10.2015. The reason for this indifference is evident from the averments in his counter affidavit which unfolded the real intention of the State, namely, come what may, it is not going to evict the unauthorized occupants any more. Instead of making endeavour to evict the remaining encroachers, the District Collector has sought to use G.O. Ms. No.58 dt.30.12.2014 and G.O. Ms. No.59 dt.30.12.2014 as a shield to avoid eviction of the unauthorized occupants. That, this plea taken by the State through the Collector is a pure afterthought is evident from the fact that nearly eight months after issue of G.O. Ms. Nos.58 and 59, the same Collector in his affidavit filed on 20.8.2015 has requested this Court to allow further time to complete the process of eviction. It is beyond this Court’s comprehension as to what made the State to take a complete volte-face barely within two months of making such unequivocal statement on the eviction of the unauthorized occupants.
At the hearing of this case on 06.11.2015, when this Court has confronted Mr. B. Mahender Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, with this sudden shift in the stand of the State disregarding the fact that the orders of this Court directing eviction of the unauthorized occupants have attained finality, silence was his answer. In effect, the State seems to be thinking that implementation or otherwise of the orders passed by the Courts is subject to its whims and the judicial orders can be set at naught by the State’s executive fiat. Such an approach and attitude of the State is unthinkable in a Democracy wedded to and sworn by the rule of law. If the State executive can overturn the judicial orders of the Constitutional Courts in the guise of evolving new policies, that would spell doom for an orderly society. The stand taken by the State through its District Collector is an open defiance of the judgment of a Constitutional Court. This is the precise reason why we have considered it apt to quote the famous words of the Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, as a prelude to this Judgment. In this context, we are also reminded of the Thomas Fuller’s statement made centuries ago that “Be ye ever so high, still the law is above thee”, which was adopted with a slight modification by Lord Denning, the celebrated English Judge of the 20th century,
[1]
i n Gouriet Vs. Union of Post Office Workers in the following words:
“Be you ever so high, the law is above you”.
A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in T.N.
[2]
Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot and another after reminding itself of the above mentioned famous quote of Sir Edward Coke, while emphasizing on the imperative need for everyone to obey the orders of the Courts, had this to say:
“Everyone, whether individually or collectively, is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever he may be, however high he is, he is under the law. No matter how powerful he is and how rich he may be.
Disobedience of this Court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very corner stone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. That is why it is imperative and invariable that courts’ orders are to be followed and complied with.”
‘That the power to punish for contempt of court is a safeguard not for Judges as persons but for the function which they exercise’, was well articulated by Justice Frankfurter in Pennekamp v.Florida
[3]
. We would like to quote the relevant paragraph of this report below:
"If men, including Judges and journalists, were angels, there would be no problems of contempt of court. Angelic Judges would be undisturbed by extraneous influences and angelic journalists would not seek to influence them. The power to punish for contempt, as a means of safeguarding Judges in deciding on behalf of the community as impartially as is given to the lot of men to decide, is not a privilege accorded to Judges. The power to punish for contempt of court is a safeguard not for Judges as persons but for the function which they exercise."
[4]
I n Baradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit , the Supreme Court has explained the meaning of the phrase contempt of Court as under:
“Contempt of Court is disobedience to the court, by acting in opposition to the authority, justice and dignity thereof. It signifies a wilful disregard or disobedience of the court’s order; it also signifies such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute. [Vide 17 Corpus Juris Secundum pages 5 and 6; Contempt by Edward N. Dangel (1939 Edn.), page 14, Oswald’s Contempt of Court (1910 End.) pages 5 and 6.]”
In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India
[5]
and another , the Supreme Court explained the purpose and nature of the contempt jurisdiction in the following passage:
“…The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. It is an unusual type of jurisdiction combining ‘the jury, the judge and the hangman’ and it is so because the court is not adjudicating upon any claim between litigating parties. This jurisdiction is not exercised to protect the dignity of an individual judge but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. In the general interest of the community it is imperative that the authority of courts should not be imperiled and there should be no unjustifiable interference in the administration of justice. It is a matter between the court and the contemnor and third parties cannot intervene. It is exercised in a summary manner in aid of the administration of justice, the majesty of law and the dignity of the courts. No such act can be permitted which may have the tendency to shake the public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the administration of justice.”
That, people howsoever high they may be, they are not above the law, and that the weapon of contempt available to the Courts for protecting themselves from the onslaught to the institution, can reach their neck, is lucidly elucidated by the Apex Court in Arundati Roy, In Re
[6]
. We can do no better than reproducing the view of the Supreme Court in its own words hereunder:
“'Rule of Law' is the basic rule of governance of any civilised democratic polity. Our Constitutional scheme is based upon the concept of Rule of Law which we have adopted and given to ourselves. Everyone, whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever the person may be, however high he or she is, no one is above the law notwithstanding how powerful and how rich he or she may be. For achieving the establishment of the rule of law, the Constitution has assigned the special task to the judiciary in the country. It is only through the courts that the rule of law unfolds its contents and establishes its concept. For the judiciary to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. After more than half a century of independence, the judiciary in the country is under a constant threat and being endangered from within and without. The need of the time is of restoring confidence amongst the people for the independence of judiciary. Its impartiality and the glory of law has to be maintained, protected and strengthened. The confidence in the courts of justice, which the people possess, cannot, in any way, be allowed to be tarnished, diminished or wiped out by contumacious behaviour of any person. The only weapon of protecting itself from the onslaught to the institution is the long hand of contempt of court left in the armoury of judicial repository which, when needed, can reach any neck howsoever high or far away it may be. In Vinay Chandra Mishra In re.[(1995) 2 SCC 584 : AIR 1995 SC 2348] this Court reiterated the position of law relating to the powers of contempt and opined that the judiciary is not only the guardian of the rule of law and third pillar but in fact the central pillar of a democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. It is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted with extraordinary powers of punishing those who indulge in acts, whether inside or outside the courts, which tend to undermine the authority of law and bring it in disrepute and disrespect by scandalizing it. When the court exercise this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver 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 E.T. Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association [7] and another the Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of the growing tendency of the government officers to somehow or the other circumvent orders of the Courts and try to take recourse to one decision or the other. The pithy observations of the Court are relevant to be reproduced hereunder:
“It has become a tendency with the government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of Court and try to take recourse to one justification or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the Court. This tendency of undermining the Court's order cannot be countenanced. This Court time and again has emphasized that in democracy the role of the Court cannot be subservient to the administrative fiat. The executive and legislature has to work within Constitutional framework, and the judiciary has been given the role of watchdog to keep the legislature and executive within check.”
Tested on the anvil of the law on contempts laid down by the English and Indian Courts as discussed above, we have the least doubt that the State is clearly guilty of wilful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court. We have also no doubt whatsoever in our mind that the prayer in the affidavit dt.5.11.2015 made by the Collector to give him twelve months’ time to complete the entire process of shifting of the unauthorized occupants, is just a cloke or moonshine to escape from the contempt liability. We say this because neither an application was filed seeking enlargement of time nor at least a formal request for such enlargement was made by the learned Special Government Pleader, or Mr. M. Raghunandan Rao, the District Collector, who was present in the Court during the hearing. The tenor of the said counter affidavit and the indifferent conduct of the District Collector in the Court clearly conveyed the message to the Court that they have nothing more to do towards the implementation of the orders of the Court and that it is upto the Court to take whatever decision it would like to take. We feel that this conduct is thoroughly exasperating, nay, frustrating. The enormous patience and the self-restraint exhibited by the successive Benches of this Court appear to be mistaken for weakness and the grace and latitude being shown by the Court for helplessness. The State appears to be labouring under a wrong notion that it can disobey the Courts’ orders with impunity in protecting the possession of unauthorized occupants of the houses allotted to the deserving people of the society, like snakes entering the termite mounds and refusing to vacate. It is truly distressing that a judicial order which attained finality eight years ago is still clamouring for implementation and the long rope given by this Court over a period of about eight years was not taken advantage by the successive Governments reducing the orders of this Court to a mockery and sending undesirable signals to the society that the Court is watching like a hapless spectator when its orders are violated with disdain. We feel that if the Court continues to remain silent even at this stage, it will gravely affect its majesty, dignity and authority.
In Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh[8] the Supreme Court held that “if laxity in enforcement of Courts’ orders is shown, the Courts would render themselves useless and their orders will be reduced to utter mockery.” It has further held that ‘feeling of confidence and proper administration of justice cannot but be the hallmark of Indian jurisprudence and contra-action by Courts will lose its efficacy. Tolerance of law Courts there is, but not without limits and only upto a certain point and not beyond the same.’ In this case our tolerance is stretched to the extreme point and we regret to express “thus far and no further”. On the analysis of the facts of the case and the law as discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the State is guilty of wilful, conscious and deliberate violation of the successive orders of this Court commencing from order dt.20.7.2007 in W.P. No.24801 of 2006 to various subsequent orders passed by several Benches and the solemn undertakings given by the successive District Collectors.
In the light of the above finding, we have to now deal with the aspect of the nature and quantum of punishment. It needs to be noticed that the contempt case was filed against the District Collector, the Special Deputy Collector- cum-Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, working at that time. None of the officers, who were impleaded as eo nominee parties, appear to be working at present. As several events have taken place and various officers were posted and subsequently transferred during the pendency of this contempt case, we find it neither fair nor possible to haul up all those officers for contempt.
Mr. M. Raghunandan Rao, the present incumbent of the office of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, has filed at least three counter affidavits commencing from 20.8.2015. As noted hereinbefore, in his first counter, which was filed on 21.8.2015 and sworn to on 20.8.2015, he has requested for allowing further time to complete the process of eviction, but he has failed to stand on his word and filed a counter affidavit on 5.11.2015 completely retracting his earliest stand and came out with a stand that the State Government intends to legalize the unauthorized occupations of the encroachers. Such stand taken by an All India Service Officer holding the responsible position of the District Collector, is not only wholly ill-conceived, but also falls foul of the mandatory directions issued by this Court and also his own undertaking given in his first counter affidavit. Therefore, we are left with no option other than undertaking the unpleasant, but unavoidable task of punishing him for contempt of court.
On the quantum of punishment, we are of the view that punishment for contempt must not only be punitive but also preventive. In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd., and others Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of
[9]
India and another , the Supreme Court held that the object of the contempt law is not only to punish but it includes the power of the Courts to prevent such acts which interfere, impede or prevent administration of justice. On a deep contemplation, we feel that mere imposition of fine will not match the gravity of the act of contempt. Therefore, we sentence Mr. M. Raghunandan Rao, the present District Collector, Ranga Reddy District with simple imprisonment for one month besides imposing a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to take necessary steps for execution of this Judgment under Rules 31 and 33 of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J After pronouncing the Judgment, the learned Advocate General (TS) requested for suspension of the Judgment to facilitate the contemnor to avail appropriate remedy against the Judgment.
Considering this request, we suspend operation of this Judgment for a period of four weeks.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date : 02-12-2015 CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
Note : The Registry shall append order dated 02-12-2015 in C.A.No.402 of 2015 in C.C.No.534 of 2015 as Annexure-I to the Judgment in C.C.No.534 of 2010. It shall also append the Views dated 02-12-2015 expressed by the Court on the Memo filed by the Advocate-General (TS) as Annexure-II to the said Judgment. It is directed that both the Annexures shall form part of the Judgment.
B/o AM/BNR Date : 02-12-2015
[1] 1977(1) QB 729 = MANU/UKWA/0011/1977
[2] (2006) 5 SCC 1
[3] 90 L Ed 1295 : 329 US 331 (1946)
[4] (1973) 1 SCC 446
[5] (1998) 4 SCC 409
[6] (2002) 3 SCC 343
[7] (2004) 8 SCC 683
[8] (2002) 4 SCC 21
[9] 2012(10) SCC 603