GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR. versus G. LAKSHMAN REDDY AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 01-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
G. LAKSHMAN REDDY AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER I, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 
S.12-Compound wall constructed to protect police quarters-Suit 
filed for demolition of the wall on the ground that it had obstructed public C 
way-Ex-parte decree granted since police refused to receive the notice-
Warrant issued for demolition of the wall-Police officials obstructing 
execution of the warrant-Court officers taken to police station-Held: 
The Police Officials concerned had no regard for law and they had taken 
law into their hands obstructing the execution of the warrant-Thus they 
had clearly and wilfully with obstinate bravido committed contempt D 
punishable under S.12--Contemnors convicted and sentenced. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CivH Appeal No. 14821 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.95 of the Andhra Pradesh E 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 2433 of 1955. 
Mrs. K. Amreshwari and G. Prabhakar for the Appellants. 
L.N. Rao, R.S. Krishnan and P.P. Singh for the Respondents. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. 
A compound wall was admittedly constructed at Police Lines in 
Nizamabad Town in Andhra Pradesh, statedly to protect the police quarters. 
G 
A suit was filed in OS No. 123 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, 
Nizamabad for demolition of the wall on the ground that the police H 
343 
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A construction of the wall had obstructed public way. Decree was granted, 
though exparte on September 12, 1991 since the police refused to receive 
the notice. The execution application was laid by the decree-holder on 
December 1, 1991. The Court had issued notice on execution. Thereafter, 
warrant was issued on February 7, 1996 for demolition of the wall. The 
warrant was entrusted to one Shri Madhusudhan Bhat for enforcement. 
B He went along with Venkaiah, another bailiff, Syed Ahmad Ali and 
G. Vinayak Raj process survers, along with workmen to the site to demolish 
the constructed wall. While they were in the process of demolishing the 
wall, it is now clear from the record that Circle Inspector of Police, 
Narasimha Raju, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Laxminarayana and other 
police force had gone there and obstructed the execution of the warrant. 
C They took the court officers to the police station. It is the report of the 
bailiffs that they were wrongly confined in the police station, despite the 
fact that they had informed that they are Court Officers and had came to 
the spot with their duty to execute the warrant. On the basis of that report, 
a complaint came to be filed and is pending decision. So, we need not 
proceed further on that issue. 
D 
When the matter was brought to out notice in the appeal filed by the 
Government agent on the refusal to set aside ex-parte decree, we had 
taken sue motu action and issued notice on April 21, 1996 to Circle Inspector 
of Police, 4- Town, Narasimha Raju, Sub-Inspector of Police, 4-Town, 
P.S. Laxminarayana and Head Constable Murali, 4-Town Police Station, 
E Niranjan, Head Constable, 4- Town Police Station and Hameed, Reserve 
Sub-Inspector, Special Party. Pursuant thereto, Narasimha Raju, Circle 
Inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police Laxminarayana 
admitted their presence and stated that there were extenuating circumstances; 
they pleaded that there was a commotion; law and order problem was 
F created by the mob on account of pelting stone by the police personnel 
and the public at each other. There were about 300 to 400 people gathered 
there. To disburse the mob, they had used force to defuse law and order 
situation. They pleaded that they did not know that the court officers had 
come there to demolish the wall. As a consequence they had no intention 
to violate the orders of the court in execution of the warrant. In view of 
G those statements, we directed the District Judge, Nizamabad to examine 
the persons and submit the report with his firtdings. The learned District 
Judge in his report dated July 19, 1996 has recorded the findings that 
Madhusudhan Bhatt and the above said court officers and workmen had 
gone to execute the warrant for demolition of the wall. He found that the 
Central Nazir had entrusted to P.Venkaiah, Bailiff G. Vinayak Raj and 
H S.A. Ali Process server but Central Nazir has no power to direct them to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.