Andhra Pradesh,Housing Board vs Quility Care India Limited

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This application is filed for being mentioned.

Mr. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel, who appeared for the A.P. Housing Board, respondent No. 1 in C.C. No. 842 of 2010, filed this application.

The brief facts leading to the filing of this application are as follows:

Feeling aggrieved by an order of a learned Single Judge allowing W.P. No. 25664 of 2000, M/s. Quality Care India Limited filed Writ Appeal No. 828 of 2002. A Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us (CVNPJ) is a member) disposed of the said appeal on 04.02.2009 with the direction to the Government of A.P, represented by its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, to register the land in favour of the appellant in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 4, Housing (BH.II) Department, dated 17.01.2004. The A.P. Housing Board filed W.A.M.P. No. 1578 of 2009 seeking clarification of the said order. It was pleaded that as M/s. Annapurna Associates Private Limited was the lessee over the site in question and G.O.Ms. No. 4 dated 17.01.2004 was issued by the State Government in favour of the said agency, a clarification is needed as to whether the property can be registered in the name of the appellant. This Court, by order dated 13.08.2009, clarified the order dated 04.02.2009 with the direction to the Government of A.P, represented by its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, to register the property in favour of the appellant. However, M/s. Annapurna Associates Private Limited filed W.P.M.P. No. 12639 of 2010 in W.P. No. 4492 of 2001, seeking clarification of the order dated 04.02.2009, and W.A.M.P. No. 716 of 2010 in W.A. No. 828 of 2002, seeking leave for filing the application in W.A. No. 828 of 2002. The appellant in W.A. No. 828 of 2002 also filed C.C. No. 842 of 2010 complaining willful disobedience of order dated 13.08.2009 in W.A.M.P. No. 1578 of 2009 in W.A. No. 828 of 2002. The contempt case as well as the miscellaneous applications came to be disposed of by common order dated 25.06.2010. This Court, having found merit in the plea of M/s. Annapurna Associates Private Limited that as it is the lessee of the Housing Board and G.O.Ms. No. 4 dated 17.01.2004 permitting alienation of the property having been issued in its favour, the direction issued by this Court in W.A.M.P. No. 1578 of 2009 needs to be reconsidered, by its order dated 25.06.2010, modified the order dated 04.02.2009 in W.A. No. 828 of 2002 as clarified by order dated 13.08.2009 in W.A.M.P. No. 1578 of 2009, by directing that the property shall be registered in the name of M/s. Annapurna Associates Private Limited instead of M/s. Quality Care India Limited (the appellant in the Writ Appeal).

With respect to the contempt case, this Court has made the following observations:

As far as the contempt case is concerned, at the hearing, Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, Standing Counsel for A.P. Housing Board, submitted that in view of the ambiguity prevailing with regard to the agency in whose name the property was to be registered, the Housing Board could not comply with the order of this Court. He has stated that the Housing Board will comply with the order dated 04.02.2009 as modified by this Court today by registering the property in the name of M/s. Annapurna Associates Private Limited, within a period of two months from today. This undertaking given by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Housing Board is placed on record and the contempt case is closed.

It is with reference to the above reproduced observations that the learned counsel who appeared for the A.P. Housing Board filed this application. In his affidavit filed in support of this application, the learned counsel has inter alia stated that he has not given any undertaking on behalf of the Housing Board as recorded by this Court in the above-noted order as reproduced hereinbefore.

At the hearing, Mr. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel, has reiterated the stand taken by him in his affidavit.

It is indeed regrettable that an application of this nature is filed by a practicing lawyer. The statement of fact recorded by this Court is self-speaking. Unless the Counsel appearing for the Housing Board had not made the statement, there was no reason for the Court to make such a categorical recording as was done by it. We, therefore, find no reason to accept the request of the counsel to delete the statement attributed to him in the order in C.C. No. 842 of 2010. The law is well settled that the recording of events that transpired in the Court in a judicial order is sacrosanct, unimpeachable, unquestionable and non-justiciable. It is not permissible for either a lawyer or a litigant to dispute the correctness of such recording of the facts made by the Court in a judicial proceeding. (See : D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra and others (2001)2 SSC 221 and State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another (1982)2 SSC 463). In the light of this well settled legal position, this Court does not find merit in this application.

The application is accordingly dismissed.