1. The Petitioner / Party-in-Person has preferred the instant Contempt Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court to punish the Respondents in willfully, knowingly and deliberately disobeying the Judgment dated 19.02.2016 in W.A.No.188 of 2016 passed by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court.
2. Heard the Petitioner on the ''Maintainability of the present Writ Petition''.
Petitioner''s Pleas:
3. According to the Petitioner, in W.A.No.188 of 2016 dated
19.02.2016 the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court had directed the
Revenue Authorities not to interfere until title is settled by the Civil and
Appellate Courts and further that the present Contempt Petition is filed
against the Assistant Executive Engineer of Zone-8 and Junior Engineer
of Division No.95 in Corporation of Chennai and the Tahsildar,
Ayanavaram Taluk, Chennai - 23 and the Police Officers of Villivakkam,
Chennai - 49 have disobeyed and committed contempt as regards the
the Hon''ble Division Bench orders / directions issued therein:
"1. W.P.No.38555 of 2015 dated 22.02.20162. W.A.No.188 of 2016 dated 19.02.20163. Crl.O.P.No.22443 of 2015 and 4403 of 2016 dated 29.02.20164. The Letter of the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9 in Lr.No.1764/6(1)/2016-3 dated 30.03.2016."
4. It is the stand of Petitioner that the 3rd Respondent had committed Contempt in regard to the Hon''ble Division Bench order in W.P.No.17058 of 2016 dated 10.11.2016 and further had given a wrong and erroneous information to the Court. In fact the 3rd Respondent never submitted any Application before C.M.D.A. or Corporation of Chennai Authority and that she has no title deed and also not having Patta in regard to the disputed property in T.S No.24, Block No.61, Konnur Village, Chennai - 49. As a matter of fact, the 3rd Respondent had stated that the area belongs to Tambaram Taluk and Tiruvallur District and she also gave a wrong Door Number.
5. That apart, it is represented by the Petitioner that the 3rd Respondent''s building is on the road land extent and set-backs were not provided and also constructed ground and three floors and the same is an illegal and unlawful one because of the reason that the building is an unauthorised one.
6. Continuing further, the Petitioner points out before this Court the fact that the police officials, Villivakkam, Chennai had not registered a First Information Report against the 3rd Respondent, who has no title deed much less a Parent Deed. In reality, the said property belongs to one Muniammal and there is no passage at all. Apart from that, despite the direction issued by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.22443 of 2015 dated 29.02.2016, the Villivakkam Police, Chennai - 49 had not registered the First Information Report.
7. The Petitioner proceeds to point out that the 3rd Respondent with a malicious and fraudulent intention filed O.S.No.1287 of 1986 and that in compromise memo, an order was passed on 04.04.1989. In this connection, the grievance of the Petitioner is that the trial and the Appellate Court by not taking into consideration of the memo in a proper perspective had ordered for his arrest and his sisters and further that for an illegal and unauthorised construction, both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are responsible.
8. Added further, the Petitioner projects an argument that he along with his four unmarried sisters have an ''Easementary Right'' to the road (through the passage length of 57 feet and passage width of 3 feet and 9 inches on the eastern side and 5 feet 6 inches on the western side), which was not appreciated by the trial Court in I.A.No.2183 of 2015, I.A.No.15611 of 2015 in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 as well as the Appellate Court in CMP No.52 of 2015 in CMA No.92 of 2015.
9. The Petitioner proceeds to take a plea that the 3rd Respondent has put up an illegal, unlawful, unauthorised construction in the Ground Floor, 1st Floor, 2nd Floor and 3rd Floor and to murder his family members, had engaged the Villivakkam Police, Rowdies and neighbouring Landlords and the Corporation Officers in Zone 8, which are under her control.
10. The Petitioner takes a stand that the Learned XVIIIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.17292 of 2014 in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 (filed by his sisters and himself against the 3rd Respondent, 4th Respondent and 3 Others, under Order 39 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code) on 11.11.2014 had granted a relief of ''Ad-interim Injunction'' till 19.11.2014 and ordered Notice to the Respondents etc.,
11. Furthermore, the Petitioner''s Sisters and himself had filed CMP No.52 of 2015 in C.M.A.No. 92 of 2015 on the file of Learned XIXth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai seeking an order of Interim status quo in their favour in regard to the order passed in I.A.No.17292 of 2014 in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 dated 11.11.2014 on the file of Learned XVIIIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai pending disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
12. The core grievance of the Petitioner is that the CMP No.52 of 2015 in C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 is pending on the file of Learned XIXth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
13. The Petitioner refers to the Order in W.P.No.17058 of 2016 dated 10.11.2016 filed by the 3rd Respondent, as Petitioner (S.Thennarasi V. The Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai - 9 and two others wherein at Paragraph Nos.2 to 5, this Court had passed the following orders:
"2. A perusal of the order shows that initially the paragraphs record the facts and the rival contentions and the conclusion is only in para 5. The conclusion is predicated on a plea that there is a title dispute pending in respect of the suit property and thus, the question of grant of planning permission for the building on the site will not arise.3. it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner by reference to the civil dispute pending before the City Civil Court that the same is a bare suit for injunction filed by the fourth respondent in which interim orders are passed and subsequently, modified relating to the issue of passage. Thus, there is no title suit pending.4. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the construction has been made without obtaining planning permission and thus, only post facto, the planning permission is being sought.5. In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 is set aside as the very premise of the order is not factually correct. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority / first respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law."
14. The Petitioner also refers to the complaint dated 07.10.2016 given by sisters and himself addressed to the Hon''ble Chief Justice of this Court against the Learned XIXth Additional Judge, City Civil Court in C.M.A. No.92 of 2015 wherein they had stated that the Judgment dated 19.02.2016 of this Court in W.A.No.188 of 2016, the Order in W.P.No.38555 of 2015 dated 22.02.2015 and the Proceedings no.1764- UD-6-1 dated 30.03.2016, were not received by the concerned Judicial Officer.
15. The Petitioner, refers to the Order of this Court dated 21.09.2015 in W.P.No.13169 of 2015 (filed by him, as a Petitioner) against the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai and 6 Others wherein at Paragraph No.5, it is among other things mentioned that ''... the Law is quite settled with the decision of a Revenue Authority is subject to the decision to be made by the Civil Court. The Revenue Authority cannot be decide the inter se dispute between the parties and dispose of the Writ Petition by observing that the Civil Court including the Trial Court or the Appellate Court, which is hearing the Appeal filed against the Interlocutory Application are expected to dispose of the same without placing any reliance upon the joint patta issued by the Third Respondent / Tahsildar, (Ayanavaram Taluk), Ayanavaram, Chennai - 23'' etc.,
16. The Petitioner, points out that in Crl.O.P.Nos.22443 of 2015 and 4403 of 2016 filed by him and his sisters against the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai and six others seeking for passing of an order by this Court in directing the 2nd Respondent / Inspector of Police, V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, Villivakkam, Chennai to register the FIR against the Respondents 3 to 7 therein and Officers mentioned in his complaint dated 07.02.2015 and to file a charge sheet in an appropriate forum and also seeking police protection for the safety, security and protection to the lives and to the property of the Petitioners residential building from the illegal acts of the Respondents 3 to 7 therein and their henchmen, supporters based on the Complaint dated 17.02.2016 (In Crl.O.P.No.4403 of 2016), this Court on 29.02.2016 passed a Common Order in directing the Learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of the Suit in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order (with reference to Crl.O.P.No.22443 of 2015). Further, this Court in Crl.O.P.No.4403 of 2016 had directed the Respondent police therein to consider the representation dated 17.02.2015 for providing police protection to them only with regard to their personal lives and with reference to the civil dispute pending between the parties, it was observed that there was no need to provide police protection in regard to the property concerned.
17. The Petitioner adverts to the Order of Writ Petition No.38555 of 2015 dated 22.02.2016 (filed by him against the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (C.M.D.A.), Chennai and 5 Others) wherein the Respondents 5 and 6 were permitted to remove their belongings within a period of one week and thereafter, ordered the lock and seal in respect of the unauthorised portion of the premises under the seal of the Corporation in the presence of officials concerned. Further, liberty was granted to the Respondents 1 and 2 therein to proceed with the matter in accordance with Law and its on own merits.
18. The Petitioner further refers to the Letter in No.4940/Ud- VII(1)/2017-3, dated 04.04.2017 to the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai wherein at Paragraph No.6, it is mentioned as under:
"6. The Government after careful consideration of facts and the submission made by the appellant. During the hearing, it is hereby ordered to deseal the premises for a period of six months to carryout the rectifications in the building subject to furnishing of an undertaking by the appellant that during the period of de-sealing, the premises shall not be put to occupation / use."
The Civil Contempt and its Legal Position:
19. At the outset, this Court pertinently points out that a ''Civil
Contempt'' involves disobedience to a Court''s order affecting the ''Rights
of Parties'' to that order. The aim of contempt proceedings in such a
case is to secure compliance of the order. Moreover, an object of the
proceedings for ''Civil Contempt'' is to force the defaulting party to
carryout the Court''s order. The ''Initiator of Contempt Proceeding'' in
''Civil Contempt'' is really an aggrieved person. The Civil Contempt may
be waived by an individual. The purpose of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, is to prevent the desperate conduct of individuals to bring down
the ''Authority of Court of Law'' and to preserve the citizens ultimate faith
and confidence in Court.
20. It is to be noted that the proceedings in which the relief is claimed against the action of Revenue Authorities is a Civil proceedings, as per decision the Commissioner of Income Tax V. Ishwarlal reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court at Page 1818.
21. As a matter of fact ''an aggrieved'' has no right to insist that a ''Court of Law'' ought to exercise the jurisdiction of Contempt between a ''Contemnor and the Court''. Undoubtedly, the violation of an order itself should be clearly established, as per decision R.Bramblevale Limited in 1970 Ch : Page 128 at Special Page 137 (Per Lord Denning M.R.)
Character of Jurisdiction :
22. It is to be noted that the contempt jurisdiction is quasi criminal
in nature. Also that the said jurisdiction is an effective and efficacious
tool in the hands of a Court of Law. Further, the said jurisdiction may not
be resorted to where an effective and alternative remedy is available,
Danchevsky V. Danchevsky (1975) Fam.17. Of course, the
jurisdiction of contempt smacks of arbitrariness as per decision
Re Clements (1877) 46 LJ. Ch.Page 385 (Per Sir George (Jessel,
MR). Moreover, the Power to punish for ''Contempt of Court'' is under
Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India and not under Indian
Penal Code nor the Criminal Procedure Code nor the Contempts of
Courts Act, 1971.
Element of Civil Contempt :
23. It is to be borne in mind that ''Civil Contempt'' involves ''Wilful
Disobedience'' to the Order of the Court. There is no second opinion of
an important fact that the power of a ''Court of Law'' to punish a person
is a special power to be used sparingly, of course, on being subjectively
satisfied recording the true fact. When the Court issues directions they
are meant to be obeyed by the concerned. The Court of Law,
exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions
which were not dealt with in the Judgment or Order passed by it,
violation of which is alleged by the Concerned.
The Object of Criminal Proceedings:
24. Insofar as the ''Criminal Contempt'' is concerned, the aim of the
proceedings is punishment for vindicating the ''Majesty of the Judiciary''.
At this stage, this Court aptly points out the decision of Legal
Remembrancer V. Mothilal Ghose reported in 41 Calcutta Page 173,
wherein it is observed as under:
"A criminal contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court. A civil contempt is failure to do something ordered to be done by a court in a civil action for the benefit of the opposing party therein. Consequently, in the case of civil contempt, the proceeding for its punishment is at the instance of the party interested and is civil in its character; in the case of a criminal contempt, the proceeding is for punishment of an act committed against the majesty of the law, and as the primary purpose of the punishment is the vindication of the public authority, the proceedings conform as nearly as possible to proceedings in criminal cases. It is conceivable that the dividing line between the acts constituting criminal and those constituting civil contempts may become indistinct in those cases where the two gradually merge into each other."
A ''Criminal Proceeding'' may result in levying of fine, imposition of
sentence like ''Death, Imprisonment, Forfeiture of Property'' etc.,
25. In reality, the Court is concerned with the ''Issue of
Contumacy'' and conduct of a person, who alleged to have been
committed deliberate default in complying with the direction issued in
the Order or Judgment, as the case may be. If a ''Court of Law'' had not
issued any specific direction while disposing of the Writ Petition / Writ
Appeal or any other proceedings, it is for the concerned party to agitate
the same in the concerned forum, in the considered opinion of this
Court.
The High Court''s Power:
26. It cannot be gainsaid that the ''Contempts of Courts Act'', 1971
can neither curtail nor stultify the High Court''s power, which is the Court
of Record to punish for Contempt and it is only in addition to the powers
conferred on it under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
27. It is trite to make a significant mention that the ''Purview of Contempt Jurisdiction'' is to find out whether the Order of the Court has been complied with in substance or wantonly breached. A Contempt case can never be decided on ''Probabilities''. The contempt jurisdiction is not to be pressed into service in a routine and casual manner, as opined by this Court. The period of calculation for initiation of Contempt is one year.
Whether Guilty Mind is necessary?
28. ''Mens Rea'' is not a necessary component of Contempt.
A ''Civilised Society'' is cemented on ''Respect for Law''. A Court dealing
with a ''Contempt Issue'', can embark upon a ''Limited Enquiry''. Of
course, no criminal intent is required beyond disobedience of the order
knowing of in existence as per decision Ram Charan V.Dubay
reported in AIR 1955 ALL 483.
29. In W.A.No.188 of 2016 filed by the Petitioner (as an Appellant) in person, this Court on 19.02.2016 at Paragraph No.16 had only observed as under:
"16. Be that as it may, this Court, on a careful consideration of the contentions advanced by the Appellant (Party-in-person) and also this Court, on going through the impugned order dated 21.09.2015 in W.P.No.13169 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge, inter alia to that effect ''...... Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of by observing that the Civil Court including the Trial Court or the Appellate Court, which is hearing the appeal filed against the interlocutory application are expected to dispose of the same without placing any reliance upon the joint patta issued by the third respondent. It is also made clear that it is open to the parties to approach the third respondent after the disposal of the suit and placing reliance upon the same the third respondent has to act.'', is of the considered view that the said order is Just, Fair and Valid one, in the eye of Law and requires no interference. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails."
Glimpse of Case Law:
30. At this stage, it is to be relevantly pointed out by this Court that
the dividing line between the two kinds of contempt is sometimes almost
imperceptible as per decision Dulal Chandra V.Sukumar reported in
AIR 1958, Calcutta 474, it is observed and laid down as follows:
"The line between civil and criminal contempt can be broad as well as thin. Where the contempt consists in mere failure to comply with or carry out an order of a Court made for the benefit of a private party, it is plainly civil contempt and it has been said that when the party, in whose interest the order was made, moves the court for action to be taken in contempt against the contemner with a view to an enforcement of his right, the proceeding is only a form of execution. In such a case, there is no criminality in the disobedience and the contempt, such as it is, is not criminal. If however, the contemner adds defiance of the Court to disobedience of the order and conducts himself in a manner which amounts to obstruction to or interference with the course of justice, the contempt committed by him is of a mixed character, partaking as between him and his opponent of the nature of a civil contempt and as between him and the court or the State, of the nature of a criminal contempt. In cases of this type, no clear distinction between civil and criminal contempt can be drawn and the contempt committed cannot be broadly classed as either civil or criminal contempt. There is, however, a third form of contempt which is purely criminal and which consists in conduct tending to bring the administration of justice to scorn and to interfere with the course of justice as administered by the Courts. Contempt of this class is purely criminal, because it results in an offence or a public wrong, whereas contempt consisting in disobedience of an order made for the benefit of a private individual results only in a private injury. To put the matter in other words, a contempt is merely a civil wrong where there has been disobedience of an order made for the benefit of a particular party, but where it has consisted in setting the authority of the Courts at naught and has had a tendency to invade the efficacy of the machinery maintained by the State for the administration of Justice, it is a public wrong and consequently criminal in nature."
The Tenor and Spirit of High Court''s Circular:
31. It is worthwhile to extract the Hon''ble High Court''s Circular in
R.O.C. No.984/2015/RG/B5 dated 25.02.2016 whereby and whereunder
necessary directions were issued and the same are as follows:
"1. That on every Mondays, the Subordinate Courts shall exclusively list and take up for hearing and dispose of the old cases (Criminal) of all categories pending for more than 5 years, other than the regular calling and emergent works;2. that on every Wednesdays, the Subordinate Courts shall exclusively list and take up for hearing and dispose of the old cases (Civil) of all categories pending for more than 5 years, other than the regular calling and emergent works;3. that the Criminal Courts shall take all earnest steps for completing the process relating to old criminal cases pending in the stages of FIR and execution of Non Bailable Warrants etc., by holding periodical crime meetings with the Police Officials. The High Court Circulars already issued on this subject shall be followed scrupulously.The directions issued relating to exclusive listing of old cases on Mondays and Wednesdays, shall be put in to effect immediately. The Principal District Judges / Chief Judicial Magistrates shall forward the weekly statistics in the prescribed (enclosed) proforma relating to the number of old cases listed for hearing and the number of cases disposed of on Mondays and Wednesdays to the High Court on the succeeding Mondays."
An Evaluation:
32. As far as the present case is concerned, it is to be latently and
patently pointed out by this Court that C.M.A. No.92 of 2015 on the file
of Learned XIXth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai came up for
hearing on 14.07.2017, it was adjourned to 16.08.2017. Also that, the
suit in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner and his sisters, as
Plaintiffs, is pending on the file of Learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City
Civil Court, Chennai. Moreover, in I.A. No.10124 of 2015 filed by the
Petitioner and his sisters in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 on the file of trial Court
under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and 4 of Civil Procedure Code, to implead
Respondent Nos. 6 to 11 as Defendants is pending. Further, CMP No.5
of 2016 in CMA No.92 of 2015 has been filed by the Petitioner
(K.B.Rajendran and his sisters) seeking permission to file additional
documents mentioned therein and the matter, which came up for
hearing on 14.07.2017 was adjourned to 16.08.2017. Even the CMP
No.52 of 2015 in C.M.A. No.92 of 2015 filed by the Petitioner
(K.B.Rajendran and his sisters) praying to grant ad-interim status quo
came up for hearing on 14.07.2017 and the matter was adjourned to
16.08.2017. Besides the above, CMP No.46 of 2015 in C.M.A. No.92 of
2015 filed by the Petitioner and his sisters seeking permission of the
Court to file orders passed in W.A.No.1 of 2016, W.P.No.38555 of 2015
and Lr.No.1764/UD-6-1 and the same is pending. That apart M.C.No.1
of 2017 initiated against the Petitioner for interrupting the Court''s
proceedings is pending before the concerned Court.
33. More importantly, respect is expected from those who find that the Judgment or Order of a Court of Law is acceptable, but also from those to whom it is adverse or repugnant, as the case may be.
34. Be that as it may, in the present case, when it is not established on the side of the Petitioner that there has been a ''Specific Violation'' or Direction of the Impugned Judgment dated 19.02.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.188 of 2016, then, the filing of the present Contempt Petition in Sr.No. 18117 of 2017 by him is not ''Ex facie'' maintainable in Law.
35. At this juncture, a perusal of the Contempt Petition in Sr.No.18117 of 2017 by this Court points out that the 1st Respondent, viz., the Registrar General, High Court Madras is arrayed as party to the Petition on the ground that he is a necessary and proper party, as ''Head of the Authority on the Administration Side of the Hon''ble High Court''.
36. However, this Court considering the entire conspectus of the attendant facts and circumstances of the instant case holds that the 1st Respondent / Registrar General of this Court is not a proper and necessary party. Obviously, the Petitioner is suffering from ''Chimerical Deluge'' and based on thorough misconception has projected the instant Contempt Petition, which is devoid of merits.
Conclusion:
37. In fine, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. Since the C.M.A
No.92 of 2015 is pending on the file of Learned XIXth Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai (arising out of the Orders passed by the trial
Court in I.A.No.17292 of 2014 dated 11.11.2014 in O.S.No.6407 of 2014
on the file of XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai) and
further, this Court keeping in mind that nearly three years have rolled by,
not expressing any opinion on the merits of the pending matters before
the concerned Courts and also by exercising its sound judicial
discretion, directs the Learned XIXth Additional Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai to dispose of the pending C.M.A.No.92 of 2015 within a period
of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, of course,
after providing adequate opportunities to the respective parties. Equally,
this Court also directs the Learned XVIIIth Assistant Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai to dispose of I.A.No.10124 of 2015 (Impleading Petition)
in O.S.No.6407 of 2017 within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of copy of this Order, of course after providing enough
opportunities to the respective parties. It cannot be gainsaid that the
trial Court as well as the Appellate Court while disposing of the Main
Suit as well as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall pass a reasoned,
speaking Judgment on merits in a fair, just in an impartial, unbiased and
dispassionate manner. The respective parties are directed by this
Court to lend their assistance and unstinted cooperation to the trial
Court as well as to the Appellate Court in regard to the completion of
respective proceedings in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 and C.M.A.No.92 of
2015 (Pending on their File) within the time adumbrated by this Court.
Soon after disposal of the Main Suit in O.S.No.6407 of 2014 and
C.M.A.No.92 of 2015, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court shall
send a complete and comprehensive compliance report addressed to
the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court without fail.
