HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CONTEMPT CASE No.859 OF 2012
DATED: 04.12.2014 Between:
P.Sreenivasulu Reddy … Petitioner And Mr. M.G.Gopal, I.A.S. and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.859 of 2012
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
Respondent No.1 is not present today. Respondent No.2 is personally present today pursuant to the notice issued by this Court for initiation of the civil contempt.
This Contempt Case has been initiated for drawing of appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24635 of 2000 dated 27.12.2014 as modified by this Court in Writ Appeal No.1351 of 2005 dated 19.10.2011.
Therefore, looking at the prayer, it was an action for initiating civil contempt. While entertaining this Contempt Case, the Division Bench on 24.04.2013 passed an order, which is set out hereunder.
“It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for both the parties that after filing this contempt case, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 16.08.2012 purportedly in compliance with the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1351 of 2005.
However, having gone through the said order, we are of the opinion that the order runs contrary to the findings recorded by this Court in W.P.No.24635 of 2000 as well as W.A.No.1351 of 2005.
That being so, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the respondents are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.
However, the learned Government Pleader states that the respondents would be properly advised and seeks time to issue revised orders.
Post immediately after summer vacation, 2013.”
Therefore, we find that some order was passed by the first respondent. It appears from the records that the order was passed based on the recommendation of the second respondent. Therefore, this action is joint and several. According to us, both are answerable for lawful obedience in carrying out the order but compliance has been made belatedly, for which, Contempt Case has to be initiated. The order has been carried out but the Division Bench of this Court has not accepted the same and made the above observation. We are of the view that the civil contempt can be closed with suitable appropriate orders.
We therefore close this Contempt Case awarding costs in favour of the petitioner assessed at Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) to be paid by the appropriate State Government. After paying these costs, the State Government shall make an enquiry as to whether these two persons are responsible or not, and if so, the costs shall be recovered from their salary. We are of the view that disobedience of the order by any officer is a personal failure not the failure of the Government and they cannot enjoy the sovereign immunity in consequence thereof. No Government can encourage any officer to flout the Court’s order or to act in a bad faith and in derogation of the law. Once element of personal malfeasance is found, sovereign immunity enjoyed by these officers stands lifted, and they are personally liable for this. This is well settled law. The costs have to be paid within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Had there been compliance of the order either way within the time mentioned by the Court, then the petitioner would not have incurred expenses initiating contempt case. Therefore, the petitioner is not at fault but the person who is at fault has to pay costs because it is the settled position of the law that the wrong doer must pay for the wrong done.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.
4th DECEMBER, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni L.R. Copies to be marked.