http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4662 of 2004

PETITIONER: High Court of A.P.

RESPONDENT: Spl. Deputy Collector (LA), A.P. & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the  Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Letters  Patent Appeal nos. 184-85/2002.  The two Letters Patent  Appeals were directed against the common judgment of the  learned Single Judge dated 11.9.2002 in CC No.493/01 and  CC No.1211/01.  By said order learned Single Judge recorded  a finding that the Government of Andhra Pradesh deliberately  violated the orders passed by the Court in Writ Petitions nos.  6511 and 6513 of 1999.   It was held that the respondent in  CC 185/2002 had filed a wrong sworn affidavit in writ petition  6513/99 for which he is liable for perjury apart from other  consequences.  But the learned Judge took a lenient view in  the matter after considering several factors including the  unconditional apology.  During the hearing of the Letters  Patent Appeal one of the issues which came for consideration  was whether instructions of the High Court in the matter  listing of the contempt matters were complied with.  The  Division Bench by the impugned order held that the Chief  Justice had the authority in fixing the roster and allot work to  the brother Judges. But the direction given by the Chief  Justice not to post contempt case before the learned Judges  whose orders have been violated but before Judges who are  having provision to dispose of the matter runs counter to the  rules of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980 (in short the  ’Contempt Rules’) framed by the High Court under Section 23  of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short the ’Contempt  Act’) read with Articles 215 and 227 of the Constitution of  India, 1950 (in short the ’Constitution’) and Section 129 of the  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.  Hence it was directed that  Registry to post contempt case filed either by the aggrieved  person or initiated by the Court in exercise of suo motu  powers before Judge or Judges in respect of whose judgment  the contempt is alleged or the Judge or Judges who initiated  the contempt proceedings as contemplated under Rules 12  and 15 of the Contempt Rules. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has filed the appeal  in question.  Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’  Association has been impleaded by orders of this Court.  Learned counsel for the appellant and the Andhra Pradesh  High Court Advocates’ Association submitted that the matter  is having serious implications and this Court should lay down  the norms. The primary grievance seems to be transfer of the cases   which were coming for hearing under the captions "CAV", "for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

judgment" and "for pronouncement of judgments".  The  following orders need to be quoted. They are as follows:

"(A) Note to be printed in the Weekly Cause List  dated 4.8.2003 at the end of the sitting provision of  the Hon’ble Judges.

"Contempt cases (Admission and final  hearing) arising from orders in the main  cases or in the miscellaneous petitions will  be posted before the Hon’ble Single Bench  or the Division Bench having the provision  to dispose of the main proceedings as per  the roster, as the case may be."                           

(B)     "Clarification In pursuance of the instructions of the Hon’ble the Chief  Justice the following note was printed in the Weekly  Cause List dated 21st July, 2003.

"All matters under various captions  including "for Judgment" stand released  from the Benches not having the subject  on its roster and will be posted before the  concerned Benches having the said  subject on its roster".

       I am further instructed to clarify that  those proceedings where the judgments are  reserved under the caption "CAV" will not come  under the purview of the caption "for judgment"  of the above note. Soon after receiving the Court  slips either from the Court Officers or the  Personal Secretaries to the Hon’ble Judges,  where the cases are reserved for judgment,  such proceedings will find place in the Cause  List under the caption "for pronouncement of  judgment" on the day when judgment is ready  and is to be pronounced. I am further  instructed to clarify that those matters which  are coming up for hearing under the caption  "for judgment" and when the provision is not  with the Hon’ble Judge, such matters alone  stand released.

       The Personal Secretaries to the Hon’ble  Judges are asked to place this information  before the Hon’ble Judges."    

       However, the controversy seems to have lost its effect in  view of the recent circular dated 6.1.2007 issued by the High  Court.  The same reads as under:-         "R.O.C. No.2/R-JUDICIAL/2007            DATED  6.1.2007                                         CIRCULAR  Contempt Cases (Admission and Final  hearing) arising from orders in the main  cases or in the Miscellaneous Petitions will  be posted before the Hon’ble Single Bench  or the Hon’ble Division Bench in respect of  whose Judgment, decree, direction, order,  writ or other process the contempt is  alleged or before whom the undertaking  was given in respect of which wilful breach

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

was committed or before some other  Hon’ble Judge or Hon’ble Judges as the  Hon’ble the Chief Justice may direct in  case the Hon’ble Judge or Hon’ble Judges  concerned is or are not available, for  preliminary hearing and for orders as to  issue of notice to the Contemnor or  Contemnors as the case may be, as per  Rule 12 of the Contempt of Court Rules,  1980 and it is further notified that the  earlier Notice dated 4th August, 2003  wherein Contempt Cases (Admission and  Final hearing) arising from orders in the  main case or in the Miscellaneous  Petitions will be posted before the Hon’ble  Single Bench or the Hon’ble Division  Bench having the provision to dispose of  the main proceedings as per the Roster is  withdrawn forthwith.      

                            Sd.  REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)"

        In view of the circular dated 6.1.2007 the confusion  seems to have cleared. At this juncture, it is to be noted that  where the matter is heard in part, normally it should not be  transferred to another Bench or learned Single Judge.  But it  has come to notice in several instances that cases have been  noted to be part-heard even when it was really not so. Such  practice is to be discouraged.  The Chief Justice of the High  Court has power even to transfer a part-heard case from  Bench to another or from one learned Single Judge to another.  But this should be done in exceptional cases for special  reasons.               The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to  costs.