Holding

The 2007 circular supersedes the 2003 notice, correctly directing contempt cases to be listed before the judge whose order is alleged to be breached, and the Chief Justice may transfer part‑heard cases only in exceptional situations.

Summary

The appeal challenged a Division Bench order that the Chief Justice's 2003 notice directing contempt matters to be listed before any judge with the roster to dispose of the main case violated the Contempt of Court Rules. The Supreme Court examined whether such a listing procedure was permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the 1980 Contempt Rules, which require that contempt cases be posted before the judge whose order was allegedly breached or the judge who initiated the contempt proceeding. A 2007 circular issued by the High Court clarified the correct procedure, stating that contempt cases should be posted before the judge whose judgment is alleged to be contemptuous or before the judge who received the undertaking, thereby superseding the earlier notice. The Court held that the circular aligns with the statutory rules and that, although the Chief Justice may transfer a part‑heard case, such transfer should occur only in exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court's 2003 notice directing contempt matters to be listed before judges with roster provision contravenes the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980.
Whether the Chief Justice of a High Court has the authority to transfer part‑heard contempt cases to another bench or judge.
Whether the 2007 circular issued by the High Court correctly clarifies the procedure for listing contempt matters.

Legislation cited

Subjects

contempt of courthigh court procedurelisting of contempt matterspart‑heard case transferChief Justice powersjudicial administrationContempt Rules

Judgment

'A HIGH COURT OF A.P.
v.
SPL. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) A.P. AND ORS.

MARCH 2 I, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Practice and Procedure-Listing of contempt matters in High Court-
Before the Judges whose orders have been violated or before the Judges
C having provision to dispose of the matter-Held: Contempt Cases are to be
listed before the Judges whose orders have been violated or before whom
undertaking was given of which wilful breach was committed-Part-heard
matter should not be transferred to another Bench or Single Judge-Chief
Justice of High Court through has power to transfer part-heard case but
should be exercised in exceptional cases-Contempt of Court Rules, 1980-
D Rules 12 and 15.

Letter Patent Appeals were filed against the decision of Single Judge
of High Court in a contempt case. The Chief Justice of High Court issued a
Notice dated 04.08.2003 that the contempt cases arising from orders in the
main cases or in the miscellaneous petitions would be posted before the Single
E Judge or the Division Bench having the provision to dispose of the main
proceedings as per the roster. The Division Bench of High Court held that
the direction given by the Chief Justice not to post contempt case before the
Judges whose orders have been violated but before Judges who are having
provision to dispose of the matter was contrary to the Rules of the Contempt
F of Court Rules, 1980. It directed the Registry to post contempt l:ase filed either
by the aggrieved person or initiated by the Court in exercise of suo motu
powers before Judges in respect of whose judgment the contempt is alleged
or the Judges who initiated the contempt proceedings under Rules 12 and 15
of the Contempt Rules. Hence the present.appeal.

G During pendency of the appeal, High Court issued a Circular dated
06.01.2007 that Contempt Case~ arising from orders in the main cases or in
the Miscellaneous Petitions would be posted before Judges in respect of who$e
judgment the contempt is alleged or before whom an undertaking was given
in respect of which wilful breach was committed; and that the earlier Notice

H 3~
HIGH COURT OF A.P. v. SPL. DEPUTYCOLLECTOR(LA)A. P. [PASAYAT,J.) 309
--·?'
j
' dated 04.08.2003 is withdrawn forthwith. A
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: In view of the circular dated 06.01.2007 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 Single B
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 one Bench to another or from one Single Judge to
another. But this should be done in exceptional cases for special reasons.
[Para 5) [312-8-C)
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4662 of2004.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.9.2003 of the High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in L.P.A. No. 184 of 2002.
D
R. Sundervardhan, T.V. Ratam, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul
I
Shukla and T.V. George for the Appellant.

A. Subba Rao for the Respondent.

- Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu for the Intervenor.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E

. +
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order
passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Letters
F
--
Patent Appeal Nos. 184-85/2002. The two Letters Patent Appeals were directed
against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated l l.9.2002 in
CC No.493/0 l 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
G
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
H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A of the contempt matters were complie_d 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
B 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 oflndia, 1950 (in short the r-',
'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
C 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.

2. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has filed the appeal in question.
D 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.

3. The primary grievance seems to be transfer of the cases which were
E coming for hearing under the captions "CAV", "for 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.
F in· .
"Contempt cases (Admission and final hearing) arising from orders
in the main cases or in the miscellaneous petitions wiil 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."
G
(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, y
2003.
H
HIGH COURT OF A.P. l'. SPL. DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA) A. P. [PASAYAT, J.] 311
"All matters under various captions including "for Judgment" A.
stand released from the Benches not having the subject on its
roster and will be posted before the concerned Benches :rnving
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 B
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 C
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 D
this ;nformation before the Hon'ble Judges."

~ 4. 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:-
E
"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 F
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 was committed or before some other
Hon'ble Judge or Hon'ble Judges as the Hon'ble the Chief Justice G
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 H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 4 S.C.R.

A 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)"
B
5. 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
C 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.

6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
D
N.J. Appeal disposed of.