IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CONTEMPT CASE No.1030 of 2013 BETWEEN Murali Krishna Construction.
…PETITIONER AND K. Santhi Kumar, Executive Engineer (R and B), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
…RESPONDENT The Court made the following order:
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) The present contempt case is filed by respondent in WA.No.112 of 2013 alleging willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 12.03.2013. The operative portion of the order in the writ appeal is as follows:
“… However, on instructions, he submitted that the net value of work done after mandatory deductions is Rs.50,23,906/- and after deducting recovery amount of Rs.30,32,321/- as per clause b(i) of Memo No. 12204/Vig.II/20121 of the Transport, (R&B), VIG-I Department, the undisputed amount payable to the petitioner is only Rs.19,91,585/-. He submits that the appellants have no objection to pay the said undisputed amount.
In this writ appeal, this Court cannot decide the issue as to quantum of amount payable by the appellants to the respondent – writ petitioner.
In the circumstances, the appellants are directed to pay the admitted amount to the respondent – writ petitioner within six weeks from today. Insofar as the balance amount is concerned, the respondent – writ petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for recovery of the same.”
2. It would be noticed from the extracted portion above that the writ appeal was disposed of on the basis of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, wherein the appellants therein have specifically stated that they have no objection to pay the undisputed amount to the respondent therein. This contempt case is, however, filed by the respondent therein alleging that the appellants declined to pay the amount as per the orders of this Court.
3. On 19.06.2014, when the contempt case came up before this Court, it was represented by the learned counsel for the respondent that the order will be implemented in two weeks, hence, the case was directed to be listed after two weeks. On 03.07.2013, since the order was not complied with, the Division Bench admitted the contempt case. Again when the matter came up on 31.07.2013, Registry pointed out that this Court had not directed appearance and hence, further order was passed on 31.07.2013 admitting the contempt case and directing all the officers concerned (appellants in the writ appeal) to appear in person on 20.08.2013. Accordingly, the appellants appeared on 20.08.2013 and on that day, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants was recorded i.e. the appellants are ready to pay the bills, but in view of the strike of N.G.Os., they are unable to pay the bills and sought for time. In view of the said submission, the appearance of the appellants was dispensed with and the contempt case was directed to be listed after two weeks.
4. Thereafter, on 31.10.2013, when the contempt case was listed, an additional affidavit was filed by the Executive Engineer (R&B), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District stating that in part compliance of the order, an amount of Rs.12,92,653/- has been paid to the petitioner and it was stated that the amount, as admitted, was reduced to the aforesaid amount on account of recoveries effected towards quantified deficiencies, as furnished by the Superintending Engineer (R & B), Kakinada. It was, however, recorded that action of the respondents in reducing the amount, prima facie, appears to be contemptuous and directed the Superintending Engineer (R & B), Kakinada and the Executive Engineer (R&B), Rajahmundry to appear in person on 29.11.2013 to show cause as to why they should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. On 29.11.2013, both the said officers were present and it was represented by the learned Government Pleader that a review petition seeking review of order in WA.No.112 of 2013 is filed, hence, request was made to hear the review petition along with the contempt case. Accordingly, directions were given to list Rev.WAMP(SR).No.186463 of 2013 along with contempt case after two weeks and appearance of the respondents was dispensed with. Thereafter, the contempt case was listed on two occasions viz. 18.07.2014 and 12.09.2014. However, neither review petition was listed nor there was any information by the learned Government Pleader as to whether the review petition is returned with office objections or is otherwise ready for listing. Since similar contentions were raised as based on the additional counter affidavit we had taken note of the additional reply affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer and a separate affidavit filed by the Superintending Engineer and we had heard the learned counsel and reserved the matter for orders.
5. Evidently, the admitted amount, as instructed to the learned Government Pleader and as recorded in the order while disposing of the writ appeal, has not been paid in full except part payment to the extent of Rs.12,92,653/-, which is stated to have been paid to the petitioner herein under pay order dated 01.20.2013. Admittedly, therefore, the order of this Court is not complied with. It is, therefore, clear to us that as long as the said order in the writ appeal is not reviewed or modified by a further order, the respondents cannot contend that notwithstanding the admitted amount accepted by them, they could voluntarily make deductions therefrom and pay only part of the amount to the petitioner herein. Neither any sufficient cause nor any reason is brought to our notice to take any contrary view than the one recorded above. Hence, in our view, the Superintending Engineer (R&B), Kakinada, East Godavari District and the Executive Engineer (R&B), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District are guilty of committing contempt of this Court in willfully disobeying the orders of this Court.
6. Since the Superintending Engineer (R&B), Kakinada, East Godavari District and the Executive Engineer (R&B), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District had appeared before this court and had filed affidavits earlier and their presence was earlier dispensed with, as noted above, in view of willful disobedience of the orders of this Court, as recorded above, there shall be a direction to both the said Officers to appear before this court and show cause against the proposed punishment, if they so desire.
7. Issue fresh notice to the Superintending Engineer (R&B), Kakinada, East Godavari District and the Executive Engineer (R&B), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District directing them to appear in person on 21.11.2014.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J October 10, 2014 DSK Dt. 10.10.2014 When the above order was proposed to be pronounced, the learned Government Pleader has placed before the Court an affidavit on behalf of the respondents, which was filed in the Registry on 08.10.2014, wherein it is stated that the order could not be complied with earlier due to bifurcation of the State and administrative reasons and an unconditional apology is sought for. It is reiterated that the petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.12,92,653/- through e-cheque dated 01.10.2013 and further payment of Rs.7,51,511/- by e-cheque dated 25.09.2014 aggregating to Rs.20,44,164/-, as against the admitted amount of Rs.19,91,585/- recorded in the order of this Court in the writ appeal.
In view of the compliance of the order, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to close the contempt case.
The contempt case is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J October 10, 2014 DSK