Telangana High Court
WP/26308/2005 of Smt. Shanti Priya Pandey Vs II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.26308 of 2005 Between: Smt.Shanti Priya Pandey. … Petitioner And: II
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OFDECEMBER,TWO THOUSAND NINE
WRIT PETITION No.26308 of 2005
Between:
Smt.Shanti Priya Pandey.
…
Petitioner
And:
II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court),Srikakulam and another.
…
Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner: None.
Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.Shahina Khan for Smt.M.Bhaskara Lakshmifor R.1.
None for R.2.
This Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
-ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issue of a Certiorari toquash order, dated 6-10-2005, in IA No.405 of 2005 inCMA No.19 of 2005 on the file of respondent No.1.
The petitioner is Divisional Forest Officer,Srikakulam. In connection with an alleged forestoffence, van bearing No.AP 30T-6648 was seized bythe forest officials along with spilitted casuarina firewood of 4.5 cubic meters, valued at Rs.1,116/- nearKunduvanipeta village, Srikakulam District, and forestoffence under Sections 29 and 44 of the A.P. ForestAct, 1967 was registered. After enquiry, the seizedvehicle was confiscated by order dated 7-10-2004.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order ofconfiscation, respondent No.2 filed CMA No.19 of 2005before respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 also filedI.A.No.219 of 2005 in the said appeal seeking releaseof the said vehicle. By order, dated 17-6-2005,respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to release thevehicle subject to the condition of respondent No.2executing a bond for the value of the vehicle with onesurety. A further condition was also imposed to theeffect that the vehicle shall not be transferred, pendingthe appeal.
Complaining that the petitioner has not compliedwith the above mentioned order passed by respondent No.1, by declining to release the vehicle, respondentNo.2 filed I.A.No.405 of 2005 requesting respondentNo.1 to take action against the petitioner for notcomplying with his order.
In the said I.A., the petitioner filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was stated that, on the opinion givenby the Government Pleader for High Court, she insistedon certain conditions to be complied with. After hearingboth the sides, respondent No.1 passed order, dated 6-10-2005, wherein he expressed the opinion thatstipulating the condition that the vehicle should bepledged by way of executing a document is contrary tothe order passed by respondent No.1; and that there ismaterial to warrant action under the Contempt of CourtsAct, 1971 (for short “the Act”). Respondent No.1accordingly held that the material on record shows thataction for initiation of proceedings under the Act iswarranted; and that a separate show cause notice willbe issued. Assailing this order, the present Writ Petitionis filed.
From the nature of the order passed byrespondent No.1, which is impugned in this WritPetition, it is evident that the said order has beenpassed as a prelude to initiate further steps against thepetitioner. Under Section 10 of the Act, it is only theHigh Court, which is empowered to punish for contemptof subordinate Courts. Under Rule 5(d) of the Rulesframed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the HighCourt will initiate proceedings for contempt on areference made to it by the subordinate court in respect of which the contempt has been committed. Under Rule9(4) of the said Rules, before making a reference, thesubordinate court shall hold a preliminary enquiry byissuing a show-cause notice to the contemnor and afterhearing him, the said Court shall write a concisereasoned order of reference about the allegedcontempt.
If the impugned order is examined in the light ofthe above mentioned provisions, the same does not fitinto the scheme of the Act and the Rules. Even withoutpassing the said order, respondent No.1 would haveissued a show-cause notice, held a preliminary enquiryand submitted a report to this Court. Indeed, inpursuance of the direction given by this Court calling forreport from respondent No.1, a report has beensubmitted by the latter, wherein he made it clear that henever intended to punish the petitioner by passing anyorder and the purport of the impugned order is only toconsider whether there are grounds to submit areference to this Court as envisaged in Rule 5 of thesaid Rules. In strict sense, the impugned order neitherhas the effect of indicting the petitioner, nor does itoperate against her in any manner. Unless a show-cause notice is issued to the petitioner and proceedingsare initiated by this Court on the basis of the report, ifany, submitted by respondent No.1, the interests of thepetitioner are in no way affected.
Subject to the above observations, the WritPetition is disposed of.
------------------------------------
C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY,J
Date:29-12-2009MNR