Smt.Shanti Priya Pandey v. II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.Shahina Khan for Smt.M.Bhaskara Lakshmi for R.1. None for R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for issue of a Certiorari to quash order, dated 6-10-2005, in IA No.405 of 2005 in CMA No.19 of 2005 on the file of respondent No.1. The petitioner is Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam. In connection with an alleged forest offence, van bearing No.AP 30T-6648 was seized by the forest officials along with spilitted casuarina fire wood of 4.5 cubic meters, valued at Rs.1,116/- near Kunduvanipeta village, Srikakulam District, and forest offence under Sections 29 and 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 was registered. After enquiry, the seized vehicle was confiscated by order dated 7-10-2004. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of confiscation, respondent No.2 filed CMA No.19 of 2005 before respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 also filed I.A.No.219 of 2005 in the said appeal seeking release the said vehicle.
By order, dated 17-6-2005, respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to release the vehicle subject to the condition of respondent No.2 executing a bond for the value of the vehicle with one surety. A further condition was also imposed to the effect that the vehicle shall not be transferred, pending the appeal. Complaining that the petitioner has not complied with the above mentioned order passed by respondent No.1, by declining to release the vehicle, respondent No.2 filed I.A.No.405 of 2005 requesting respondent No.1 to take action against the petitioner for not complying with his order. In the said I.A., the petitioner filed a counter- affidavit, wherein it was stated that, on the opinion given by the Government Pleader for High Court, she insisted on certain conditions to be complied with. After hearing both the sides, respondent No.1 passed order, dated 6- 10-2005, wherein he expressed the opinion stipulating the condition that the vehicle should be pledged by way of executing a document is contrary to the order passed by respondent No.1; and that there is material to warrant action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”).
Respondent No.1 accordingly held that the material on record shows that action for initiation of proceedings under the Act is warranted; and that a separate show cause notice will be issued. Assailing this order, the present Writ Petition is filed. From the nature of the order passed by respondent No.1, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, it is evident that the said order has been passed as a prelude to initiate further steps against the petitioner. Under Section 10 of the Act, it is only the High Court, which is empowered to punish for contempt of subordinate Courts. Under Rule 5(d) of the Rules framed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court will initiate proceedings for contempt on a reference made to it by the subordinate court in respect of which the contempt has been committed. Under Rule 9(4) of the said Rules, before making a reference, the subordinate court shall hold a preliminary enquiry by issuing a show-cause notice to the contemnor and after hearing him, the said Court shall write a concise reasoned order of reference about the alleged contempt.
Operative part
If the impugned order is examined in the light of the above mentioned provisions, the same does not fit into the scheme of the Act and the Rules. Even without passing the said order, respondent No.1 would have issued a show-cause notice, held a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report to this Court. Indeed, in pursuance of the direction given by this Court calling for report from respondent No.1, a report has been submitted by the latter, wherein he made it clear that he never intended to punish the petitioner by passing any order and the purport of the impugned order is only to consider whether there are grounds to submit a reference to this Court as envisaged in Rule 5 of the said Rules. In strict sense, the impugned order neither has the effect of indicting the petitioner, nor does it operate against her in any manner. Unless a show- cause notice is issued to the petitioner and proceedings are initiated by this Court on the basis of the report, if any, submitted by respondent No.1, the interests of the petitioner are in no way affected. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-12-2009 MNR
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
A.P. Forest Act, 1967 — ss. 29, 44; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Dec 2009. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.