Andhra Pradesh High Court Sentences IAS Officer To Two Weeks Imprisonment For Willful Defiance Of Court Orders

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has sentenced IAS officer Praveen Kumar, who was the Collector of Visakhapatnam in 2017, and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs 2000 for wilful defiance of court orders. However, the operation of the order has been stayed for a period of 4 weeks.

Justice R Raghunandan Rao observed that while on the face of it, it may seem like the orders of the court had been complied with, upon a closer look the same can not be accepted.

“The direction of this Court was to pass orders in terms of the Judgment of the Full Bench in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachary vs. Revenue Department. This required the 1st respondent to give a notice to the petitioners and give them an opportunity to make out their case and to place all such documents that they deemed necessary. No such opportunity has been given to the petitioners,” said the court

In 2011, the petitioner of the present contempt case had purchased the land from one K. Yarriah. K. Yarriah had attained patta for the land and the validity of the same was upheld by the Commissioner of Appeals and subsequently by the High Court.

The petitioner had approached the high court in 2015, for directions to the Collector for removal of their land from that of the “Prohibited List” pursuant to the issuance of that Ryothwari patta for 7 acres in Kapuluppada villages in Vishakapatnam .

The court then ordered the Collector to consider the plea of the petitioner to remove the lands measuring 7 acres in Kapuluppada village of Vishakapatman from the “prohibited list” owing to the proceedings of the Revenue officials. The court had further ordered the Collector to give the petitioner sufficient chance to present his case.

The Collector however passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner without giving them any chance to be heard. Following this, a second set of proceedings were issued, where in the Collector gave reasons for passing of the first order.

The court observed that the then Kumar had completely ignored the proceedings of the Joint Collector which were affirmed by the Director of Settlements and subsequently by the Commissioner of Appeals, while dismissing the application for removal of entries from the “Prohibited List”. 

“The conduct of the 1st respondent, in issuing the additional proceedings, clearly shows that the 1st respondent having realized his mistake in passing the earlier order, is now attempting to add substance to his initial order. Even here, the 1st respondent did not give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners nor give an opportunity to place their material before the 1st respondent,” it added.

K.S.Murthy, Senior Counsel, appearing for G.V.V.S.R. Subrahmanyam, counsel for the petitioner, contented that despite his right being identified and upheld by the High Court on two different occasions, the Collector had high-handedly rejected their application by holding that the orders of the Commissioner of Appeals in the office of Commissioner Land revenue were incorrect and could not be acted upon.

G. L. Narasimha Reddy, the counsel for the respondent, contended that the respondent was acting as the protector of the State’s interest and that there was no wilful refusal or dis-obeyance of the Court’s Order.

“The manner in which the proceedings have been initiated without seeking any extension of time and rejecting the application itself on the ground of a writ petition having been filed by the Revenue Department cannot be condoned on the altar of protection of State interest,” the Court said.

The bench observed that this is not any normal case of rejection of application, wherein the Court could ask the petitioner to address any grievance by way of an appeal.

"The direction of this Court was to pass orders in terms of the Judgment of the Full Bench in Vinjamuri Rajagopalachary vs. Revenue Department. This required the 1st respondent to give a notice to the petitioners and give them an opportunity to make out their case and to place all such documents that they deemed necessary. No such opportunity has been given to the petitioners and the order passed by the 1st respondent on 08.11.2017 is a clear violation of the directions of this Court," it said.

The court added that even if the pending proceedings were to be taken into account, the officer could at best have approached the court for extension of time in passing orders. "Instead of approaching this Court, the 1st respondent took it upon himself to sit in Appeal over the orders of the Commissioner and Director of Settlements and the orders of the Commissioner Appeals and rejected the application of the petitioners," it said.

The bench further said the officer is in clear violation of the orders of the court. The unconditional apology offered by him appears to be an apology for the delay in passing the order of rejection and not for any violation of the orders of the court, it observed.

"The orders of this court were passed in the year 2017. This Contempt case has been filed in 2017. Six long years have passed without the orders of this court being implemented. The conduct of the 1st respondent is impermissible and any lenience in the face of such conduct would be counterproductive to the rule of law and enforcement of the orders of this court," it said, while holding the officer guilty.

Title: SRINIVASA RAO & ors vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR, VISAKHAPATNAM

Click Here To Read/Download Order