G. Ravi vs Praveen Prakash

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J

This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the Order dated 20.03.2023 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.6442 of 2023.

Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4, and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner filed W.P.No.6442 of 2023 claiming writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in transferring the petitioner by way of punishment, which is punitive in nature and on an anonymous complaint made by a rival union members vide Proc.No.E2/813(01)/2023-IBM dated 13.03.2023, middle of the Academic Year and without there being any disciplinary case against the petitioner a high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, without jurisdiction, contrary to the circular instructions and as such liable to be set-aside with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to continue the petitioner at Ibrahimpatnam Depot forthwith with all consequential benefits.

The writ petitioner also filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.6442 of 2023 claiming the following relief:

“the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioner at Ibrahimpatnam Depot by suspending the transfer order in Proc.No.E2/813(01)/2023-IBM dated 13.03.2023, pending disposal of W.P.No.6442 of 2023, on the file of the High Court.”

During pendency of the writ petition, this Court passed orders in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.6442 of 2023 on 20.03.2023 and issued the following directions:

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in the support of the application and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there shall be interim direction as prayed for.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, without implementing the orders of this Hon’ble Court in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.6442 of 2023 on 20.03.2023 in true spirit, the respondents deliberately flouted the orders of this Court. It is submitted that this Court stayed the transfer orders by directing the respondents herein to continue the petitioner at Ibrahimpatnam. After receiving the orders, immediately on 23.03.2023, the petitioner filed representation by duly enclosing the copy of the above said order, but till date the same was not complied with and the petitioner was not reinstated, for which also there was no response and communication and no communication was made till date even for the legal notice dated 17.04.2023 even after receipt of notice, and even passing orders by this Hon’ble Court, as such, it amounts to violation of the orders passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.6442 of 2023 on 20.03.2023. He further contends that, failure on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon’ble Court, and, therefore, they are liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Complaining the same, the petitioners filed the present Contempt Case.

Respondent No.3 – Regional Manager, Krishna Region, APSRTC, Krishna District, filed reply affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia contending that, the petitioner has not made out any case for contempt, for the reason that the petitioner was only given relieving duty for limited period of one year and he was relieved on 13.03.2023, but the present orders of this Hon’ble Court came to be passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.6442 of 2023 dated 20.03.2023. It is further submitted that, unless the suspension order is set-aside, the petitioner cannot be taken back at Ibrahimpatnam Depot. Hence, there is no violation or disobedience of the orders of this Court on the part of the Respondent No.3 and as such, the directions of this Hon’ble Court were not violated and requested to close the contempt case against him.

Respondent No.4 – Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tiruvuru filed reply affidavit denying the allegations. He stated that the petitioner was relieved from Ibrahimpatnam Depot to Tiruvuru Depot vide impugned proceedings No.E2/813(01)/2023-IBM dated 13.03.2023 by the Depot Manager, Ibrahimpatnam and he is not at all related to the present issue. The said transfer orders were issued by Sri Subramanyam, Depot Manager, Ibrahimpatnam, as such he does not have jurisdiction to issue such orders. He further stated that, the present issue does not pertain to him and not at all concerned to the transfer orders issued to the petitioner. He submitted that he is not a rightful party to the writ petition as well as contempt case, as such there is no violation or disobedience of the orders of this Court on the part of the Respondent No.4 and requested to dismiss the contempt case against him.

Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that, the an office order No.P2/813(02)(2023-DPTO/NTR dated 10.03.2023 was issued by the Personnel Officer, NTR District, Vijaywada, directing to work at Tiruvuru Depot on reliving duty. Further, vide proceedings No.E2/813(01)/2023-IBM dated 13.03.2023 the petitioner was relieved from duties at Ibrahimpatnam Depot, pursuant to transfer proceedings dated 10.03.2023.

In fact, by the date of passing order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.6442 of 2023 on 20.03.2023, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was already relieved from his duties either by the petitioner or by the respondents, except inviting an order. Taking advantage of the interim order dated 20.03.2023, the petitioner is now claiming relief to continue him at Ibrahimpatnam Depot.

However, it is evident from the proceedings dated 10.03.2023 that the petitioner was already relieved from his duties at Ibrahimpatnam Depot. Thereafter, upon relieving, he did not join the duties at Tiruvuru Depot obeying the transfer order. Having kept quiet from the date of relieving from his duties i.e. on 13.03.2023 and hiding the fact of transfer proceedings, he invited an order from his Court on 20.03.2023. On the guise of the order of this Court made a representation dated 23.03.2023 to the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ibrahimpatnam Depot to continue his service at Ibrahimaptnam Depot, further requesting to allot duties to him, treating his representation as reporting for duty. The petitioner tried to mislead the Court by hiding the relieving order dated 13.03.2023. The petitioner cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose. Suppression of material facts is not an advocacy. It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the material facts. Hence, the petitioner is cautioned not to repeat such type of mistakes in the future.

Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no willful disobedience or violation on the part of the respondents.

With the above observation, the contempt case is closed. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.