LexHIGH COURT OF A.P. versus SPL. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) A.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'A HIGH COURT OF A.P. v. SPL. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) A.P. AND ORS. MARCH 2 I, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] Practice and Procedure-Listing of contempt matters in High Court- Before the Judges whose orders have been violated or before the Judges C having provision to dispose of the matter-Held: Contempt Cases are to be listed before the Judges whose orders have been violated or before whom undertaking was given of which wilful breach was committed-Part-heard matter should not be transferred to another Bench or Single Judge-Chief Justice of High Court through has power to transfer part-heard case but should be exercised in exceptional cases-Contempt of Court Rules, 1980- D Rules 12 and 15. Letter Patent Appeals were filed against the decision of Single Judge of High Court in a contempt case. The Chief Justice of High Court issued a Notice dated 04.08.2003 that the contempt cases arising from orders in the main cases or in the miscellaneous petitions would be posted before the Single E Judge or the Division Bench having the provision to dispose of the main proceedings as per the roster. The Division Bench of High Court held that the direction given by the Chief Justice not to post contempt case before the Judges whose orders have been violated but before Judges who are having provision to dispose of the matter was contrary to the Rules of the Contempt F of Court Rules, 1980. It directed the Registry to post contempt l:ase filed either by the aggrieved person or initiated by the Court in exercise of suo motu powers before Judges in respect of whose judgment the contempt is alleged or the Judges who initiated the contempt proceedings under Rules 12 and 15 of the Contempt Rules. Hence the present.appeal. G During pendency of the appeal, High Court issued a Circular dated 06.01.2007 that Contempt Case~ arising from orders in the main cases or in the Miscellaneous Petitions would be posted before Judges in respect of who$e judgment the contempt is alleged or before whom an undertaking was given in respect of which wilful breach was committed; and that the earlier Notice H 3~ HIGH COURT OF A.P. v. SPL. DEPUTYCOLLECTOR(LA)A. P. [PASAYAT,J.) 309 --·?' ' dated 04.08.2003 is withdrawn forthwith. j A Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: In view of the circular dated 06.01.2007 the confusion seems to have cleared. At this juncture, it is to be noted that where the matter is heard in part, normally it should not be transferred to another Bench or Single B Judge. But it has come to notice in several instances that cases have been noted to be part-heard even when it was really not so. Such practice is to be • discouraged. The Chief Justice of the High Court has power even to transfer a part-heard case from one Bench to another or from one Single Judge to another. But this should be done in exceptional cases for special reasons. c [Para 5) [312-8-C) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4662 of2004. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.9.2003 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in L.P.A. No. 184 of 2002. D R. Sundervardhan, T.V. Ratam, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul I Shukla and T.V. George for the Appellant. A. Subba Rao for the Respondent. - Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu for the Intervenor. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .. DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Letters + Patent Appeal Nos. 184-85/2002. The two Letters Patent Appeals were directed F -- against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated l l.9.2002 in CC No.493/0 l and CC No.1211/01. By said order learned .Single Judge recorded a finding that the Government of Andhra Pradesh deliberately violated the orders passed by the Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 6511 and 6513 of 1999. It was held that the respondent in CC 185/2002 had filed a wrong sworn affidavit G in Writ Petition 6513/99 for which he is liable for perjury apart from other • consequences. But the learned Judge took a lenient view in the matter after considering several factors including the unconditional apology. During the -. hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal one of the issues which came for consideration was whether instructions of.the High Court in the matter listing H 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. A of the contem
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.