Telangana High Court allows contempt appeals by forest officials

The Chief Justice pointed out that contempt case cannot be entertained for a laggard client.

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B Vijaysen Reddy, on Monday allowed contempt appeals filed by officials of the Forest department.

Earlier, a single judge allowed contempt case against Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and head of Forest Force R Shobha as well as Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, RR district Forest Department, Sunitha M Bhagwat, along with Principal Secretary Forest Department A Shanthi Kumari. The single judge had imposed a punishment of six months on the officials.

---

The Chief Justice pointed out that contempt case cannot be entertained for a laggard client.

The single judge found that the officials failed to comply with the direction to finalise the acquisition of the land within six months in a writ petition filed by Mohd Sirajuddin and others alleging that the Forest Department initiated action to declare their land in Maheshwaram village as Reserve Forest.

Senior Counsel S Niranjan Reddy pointed out that the order of the single judge was made in December 2009 and the contempt was filed well after the one year limitation in 2015. The panel found that the contempt case was barred by limitation and, therefore, the single judge could not have sentenced the officials in a case filed six years after the alleged act of contempt. The panel also found that the government authorities had complied with the earlier orders and had passed orders and if the petitioners were aggrieved they ought to have filed writ petitions and not contempt cases.

Claims of teachers

The same panel granted time for hearing a contempt appeal and giving closure to claims of teachers selected way back in 1998. The contempt appeal was filed by the District Educational Officer, Khammam, against a common order by a single judge of the High Court in a batch of contempt petitions filed by T Laxmaiah and others. The litigation involves question as to whether the DSC of 1998 was contrary to merit and the roster points.

The government in the present round of litigation lost both before the Tribunal and the High Court. They, however, relied on an earlier order of the apex court and of the High court closing contempt cases. The single judge in the instant case, however, arrived at a conclusion that the DEO and the other officials of the Educational Department were guilty of violating the directions of the APAT issued in a batch of original applications. As a result, it imposed a punishment of simple imprisonment for two months on the contemnors along with fine of Rs 2,000. The panel said the court would hear the matter finally and posted it after one month.

Exclusion of lands

The said panel did not accept multiple arguments presented by the State government for excluding certain lands from the perview of GO 111. The GO imposed a total ban on all constructions in the prohibited area of Himayat Sagar and Osman Sagar limits. The panel was hearing an application of Agni Agrotech contending that the land could not be included in the ban. Vivek Reddy, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that earlier even the State government wanted certain properties to be exempted from GO 111.

Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the State government, said the government did not favour piecemeal exclusions from the GO and the matter must holistically be approached. He also said if these lands were exempted, the lake waters would affect the Kokapet lands. The Chief Justice then asked, how come the government proceeded to sell large tracts of land in Kokapet by public auction. The panel decided to relook its earlier order permitting public auction of Kokapet land. The state also pointed out that the NGT had stayed any tinkering with GO 111. The matters will be taken up on Wednesday.