Dismissed

Pelluri Kanaka Durga v. R Karikal Valven

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Nov 2019CC/106/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Contempt Case alleging wilful disobedience of previous orders. Finding that the Apex Court granted liberty to challenge an order and maintained status quo, the High Court held that the present cause for contempt did not survive.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case dismissed; respondents discharged; no order as to costs; remaining miscellaneous petitions closed.

Pelluri Kanaka Durga Vs R Karikal Valven — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND

¶2

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶3

CONTEMPT CASE No.106 of 2019

¶4

ORDER : ( per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)

¶5

Heard Sri S.Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Subhash, Sri M.Manohar Reddy and Sri P.Thirumala Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

¶6

Alleging wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court on 13.12.2018 in W.A.No.1616 of 2018, filed against W.P.No.39182 of 2018, the present Contempt Case is filed. By way of the above said order, dated 13.12.2018, in W.A.No.1616 of 2018, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Writ Appeal and the operative portion of the said order reads as under:

¶7

“1) The appellant is given two (2) weeks time from today to submit explanation together with proof that the construction undertaken at subject site is in accordance with law. A copy of this order can be enclosed along with the representation/application.

¶8

2) The Municipality, Bapatla, affords opportunity to the appellant, passes order, if unauthorized construction is found at the subject premises, grants time in accordance with law to the appellant to remove the unauthorised construction, and thereafter, if the unauthroized construction is allowed to remain notwithstanding the order, then the demolition is undertaken. The exercise directed

¶9

AVSS,J & MGR,J C.C.No.106 of 2019

¶10

¶11

above is directed to be taken up and completed within six (6) weeks from today.

¶12

3) The appellant is directed not to undertake fresh construction or change physical features of the subject matter.

¶13

4) For the purpose of ensuring that no construction is undertaken by the appellant, the Municipality takes photographs of the construction of the even date and preserves it for consideration, if required at future point of time.

¶14

5) The directions issued by us will not be understood as in any manner interfering with the civil litigation orders passed by the civil Courts. The authorities consider the complaint strictly in accordance with law”.

¶15

Counter-affidavits are filed by the respondent Nos.3 and

¶16

4, enclosing a copy of the order passed by the Honourable Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No.12059 of 2019. By way of the said order, the Honourable Apex Court, while disposing of the S.L.P. filed by the fourth respondent herein, gave liberty to the fourth respondent to challenge the order of the Municipal Commissioner of Bapatla, dated 19.01.2019, within a period of four weeks from the said date, before the concerned authority/High Court with further direction to consider the same on merits. The Honourable Apex Court also directed to maintain status quo pending consideration of the said liberty given to the fourth respondent. In fact, by way of the above said order, dated 19.01.2019, referred to in the order of the Apex Court, the Commissioner of Bapatla Municipality passed an order against the fourth respondent. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, as against the said order passed by

¶17

AVSS,J & MGR,J C.C.No.106 of 2019

¶18

¶19

the Commissioner of Bapatla Municipality, fourth respondent herein filed a statutory appeal, under Section 345 (1) of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, and the same is pending consideration before the Municipal Council, Bapatla.

¶20

For the foregoing reasons, the cause in the Contempt Case does not survive for further adjudication. Accordingly, Contempt Case is dismissed and the respondents herein stand discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Contempt

¶22

Case, shall stand closed.

¶23

¶24

__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶25

15^th November, 2019. Tsy

Pelluri Kanaka Durga v. R Karikal Valven

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pelluri Kanaka Durga v. R Karikal Valven

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvathi Bairetti, Vs Syndicate Bank

Shaik Abid Shariff Vs Shaik Razia Sultana

Kodali Kiranmai Vs Shriram City

The Bank of India Vs Presiding Officer

Shaikh Sartat Ali Vs Indian Bank

Boda Sujatha at Sujatha Kalepu Vs Boda Mallikarjun