1. This Contempt Case is filed by the writ petitioner to punish the respondents/contemnors for willful and deliberate flouting of the Order dated 22.05.2019 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.10442 of 2019.

2. Heard Sri G.Allabaksh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.21-37/C, admeasuring 198.61 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.1806 of Kosgi Village and Mandal, Narayanpet District, (hereinafter referred to as “the subject property”) having purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 06.03.2018 from one Venkatnarsimlu; that the petitioner had constructed a tin shed on the subject property after obtaining necessary permission from the Gram Panchayat and was using it for his livelihood by running an ice cream parlor and online centre and also using it as store room.

               3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that when the respondents tried to interfere and demolish the subject property, the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.10442 of 2019, and this Court passed interim order dated 22.05.2019 in I.A. No.1 of 2019 restraining the respondents from demolishing the subject property; that the petitioner immediately informed the respondents about passing of the interim order and requested them not to proceed with any demolition; that despite having full knowledge of the Court’s order, on 03.02.2024 at about 3:30 PM, the respondents demolished the petitioner’s tin shed using JCB vehicles without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Even when the petitioner physically obstructed the demolition and produced the interim order passed by this Court, the respondents ignored the same and continued with the demolition, by stating that they are above the law.

               3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the said action of the respondents amounts to willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and constitutes contempt punishable under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; that after demolition, the respondents were attempting to erect a fence around the petitioner’s property, thereby continuing their illegal acts in violation of the Court’s directions; and thus, the respondents are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, by referring to the counter affidavit, submitted that the Sericulture Officer, Kosgi, had addressed letter Rc.No.SO/Kosgi/NRPT/15/2023-24, dated 12.09.2023, to the Municipal Commissioner, Kosgi Municipality, stating that some illegal constructions were raised in Tassar Seed Station, Kosgi, which is the land belonging to the Sericulture Department; that basing on the said letter, the illegal structures were demolished by the then Commissioner, Kosgi Municipality; and that some unknown persons have again started construction in the same place and completed roof with pipes and tin sheds; and hence, requested to remove the illegal structures in the Government land and to protect the same from encroachments.

               4.1. He further submitted that the Assistant Director of Sericulture, Narayanpet had addressed letter to the Municipal Commissioner, Kosgi Municipality vide RC.No.ADS/Kosgi/NRPT/15/2023-24 dated 31.01.2024 reiterating the said facts and requested to take necessary action. As such, respondent No.1 along with Tahsildar, Kosgi Mandal inspected the spot and found that a tin shed with mud walls was existing thereon, but no material or furniture were found in the tin shed. He further submitted that the records reflect that the subject land belongs to the Sericulture Department and as such, the tin shed was removed on 04.02.2024.

               4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has no knowledge about the interim orders passed by this Court as the same was not brought to his notice and therefore, there was neither willful nor deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court.

               4.3. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that respondent No.1 tenders an unconditional and unqualified apology to this Court, and finally prayed that the unconditional apology be accepted and respondent No.1 be exonerated from the contempt proceedings.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2/Tahsildar submitted that respondent No.2 did not participate in or undertake the demolition of the tin shed, which had been carried out by respondent No.1-Municipal Commissioner. She further submitted that respondent No.2 had no role whatsoever in the demolition of the structures existing on the subject property and therefore, prayed to dismiss the contempt case against respondent No.2.

6. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record.

7. The scope of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is limited to the extent of examining whether there has been any willful, deliberate and intentional disobedience of the orders passed by the Court. Mere non-compliance or delayed compliance, by itself, would not constitute civil contempt, unless it is established that the disobedience was contumacious in nature.

8. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to demolition of structures on the subject property on 04.02.2024 by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 seeks to justify the said action on the ground that the structures were raised on Government land belonging to the Sericulture Department and that the action was taken pursuant to communications received from the Sericulture authorities.

9. It is needless to say that once interim orders are passed by this Court, i.e., restraining/staying/suspending a particular action or proceedings, the respondents are bound to either follow/comply with the same or approach this Court seeking appropriate clarification, modification or vacation of the interim order. The respondents could not have taken the law into their own hands and proceeded with the demolition on the strength of administrative communications.

10. Respondent No.1 pleaded that he had no knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court. The material available on record shows that respondent No.1 herein is a party to W.P.No.10442 of 2015 and he was represented by the then Standing Counsel and that, after passing of interim order dated 22.05.2019, copies of the interim orders were despatched to the respondents therein, including respondent No.1 herein, and to the counsel-on-record representing the parties. Therefore, the contention of respondent No.1 he was not aware of the order of this Court is factually incorrect and is untenable.

11. Respondent No.1 is a prime authority in the executive organ of the State and is holding a highly responsible post and hence, he is expected to be vigilant and diligent to ascertain whether any judicial proceedings were pending in respect of the subject property before proceeding with drastic action of demolition.

12. Except pleading mere ignorance of the interim orders passed by this Court and that demolition was undertaken pursuant to communication received from Sericulture Department, no other grounds are raised by respondent No.1 to defend his action.

13. Even assuming that respondent No.1 initially lacked knowledge of the interim orders passed by this Court, continuation of the demolition even after the order was allegedly shown to him by the petitioner demonstrates a conscious disregard to the authority of this Court.

14. The explanation that the demolition was carried out in discharge of official duties cannot absolve respondent No.1 from his liability. Every public authority or individual is under constitutional obligation to follow the judicial orders and comply with the same. Administrative exigencies or departmental instructions can never override a subsisting order passed by a constitutional Court. If such conduct is countenanced, it would erode the rule of law and diminish public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the aspect of Contempt, in Celir LLP Sumati Prasad Bafna and others (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3727) held follows:

               "Contempt jurisdiction exists to preserve the majesty and sanctity of the law. Courts are the guardians of justice and their decisions must command respect and compliance to ensure the proper functioning of society. When individuals or entities challenge the authority of courts through wilful disobedience or obstructive behaviour, they undermine the rule of law and create the risk of anarchy. Contempt serves as a mechanism to protect the integrity of the courts, ensuring that they remain a symbol of fairness, impartiality, and accountability.

               When judicial orders are openly flouted or court proceedings are disrespected, it sends a signal that the rule of law is ineffective, leading to a loss of trust in the system. Judicial decisions must remain unimpaired, free from external pressures, manipulation, or circumvention. Acts that attempt to mislead the court, obstruct its functioning or frustrate its decisions distort the process of justice and would amount to contempt.”

15. Though respondent No.1 has tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology, the same cannot be accepted as a matter of course, where the conduct complained of reflects a conscious disregard to the orders of the Court. An apology is not intended to be a device to escape the legal consequences of deliberate disobedience. The facts and circumstances of the present case do not justify acceptance of the apology as sufficient to exonerate respondent No.1 from his liability. Respondent No.1 resorted to openly flout the judicial orders of this Court, which amounts to distortion of justice and contempt.

16. As regards the contempt alleged against respondent No.2, it is the specific case of respondent No.2 that he merely accompanied respondent No.1 to the spot and that he is not involved in demolition of the tin shed of the petitioner. Even the petitioner has neither made specific allegations against respondent No.2 nor placed any material on record to establish that respondent No.2 was involved in demolition of the tin shed. In the absence of any such material, no case is made out against respondent No.2 and accordingly, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed against respondent No.2.

17. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that respondent No.1 has violated the interim order dated 22.05.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.10442 of 2019, and that the disobedience is willful and deliberate, thereby constituting contempt within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Further, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP’s case (cited supra), respondent No.1 is liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

18. In the result, the Contempt Case is allowed insofar as respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand Rupees only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) week.

19. The Contempt Case is dismissed against respondent No.2.

20. After pronouncement of orders, learned counsel for respondent No.1 requested to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed on respondent No.1 for a period of four weeks to enable him to prefer an appeal. This request of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is acceded and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on respondent No.1 is suspended for a period of four weeks from today.

21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.