Right Or Wrong, Court Orders Must Be Obeyed; Andhra Pradesh High Court Finds Transport Officials Guilty Of Contempt For Not Releasing Seized Vehicle
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, in a contempt petition by a vehicle owner against transport authorities, found the officials in contempt for not releasing a seized car despite an earlier court direction and disposed of the case by imposing costs of ₹2,000 on the respondent while keeping the punishment in suspension for four weeks to permit an appeal. The Court clarified that the legality or correctness of the underlying order cannot be examined in contempt proceedings and that any person who considers such an order contrary to law must assail it through appropriate appellate or review processes rather than decline to comply.
The contempt petition arose from directions issued in a writ proceeding concerning the release of a seized private vehicle. The car had been detained by State transport authorities on the ground of non-payment of motor vehicle tax under the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963 and the APMVT Rules, 2021. In the writ proceedings, the Court directed that the vehicle be released, subject to the owner cooperating with the authorities by producing requisite documents and responding to any demand notice.
In the subsequent contempt proceedings, the petitioner contended that, despite the earlier order, the authorities failed to release the vehicle, amounting to wilful disobedience. The respondents asserted that, upon receiving the petitioner’s request, they issued a show cause notice calling for original documents, residence proof and an explanation regarding tax liability. They further stated that, instead of replying to the notice, the petitioner paid life tax online, sought conversion of registration from the BH series to the State series, generated the payment receipt and release order from the portal and removed the vehicle from the yard. The respondents also alleged that the petitioner was a resident of Andhra Pradesh who had obtained BH series registration with an intention to avoid payment of legitimate State tax.
The Court observed that “Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged, it cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.”
Relying on Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah and Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others, the Bench further recorded that “It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier decision If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court.”
Also Read: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Annual Schedule for LLB Admissions from 2026 to Curb Delays
The Court directed that Respondent No.1, Sri I. Venu Gopala Rao, and Respondent No.2, Sri Saripalli Srinivas Yadav, “are liable for punishment as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), each. Contempt case is allowed, directing Respondent No.1… and Respondent No.2… to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, each.”
“The above order is suspended for a period of four (04) weeks to prefer an appeal”. It added that if no appeal is filed or no stay is granted, the contemnors “shall surrender before Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 26.11.2025 before 05.00 p.m to undergo sentence.”
Case Number: Contempt Case No.3926 of 2024
Bench: Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
