Clerk's order closing a contempt petition instituted for alleged wilful disobedience of a previous High Court direction. The court held that since the petitioner already filed a pending writ challenging the rejection of their representation, the contempt case was closed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
C.C.No.152 of 2017
ORDER : (per AVSS,J)
Alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2900 of 2001, dated 28.01.2016, the present Contempt Case came to be instituted.
Heard Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for School Education for the
respondents.
By way of the aforesaid order, the Division Bench of the common High Court disposed of the Writ Petition, as not pressed. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
“Writ Petition is disposed of as not pressed with liberty as prayed. If the petitioners make any such representation, we hope and trust that the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioners are directed to place a copy of this order along with their representation before the concerned authority. It is made clear, as requested by learned Special Government Pleader, that the orders passed in the aforementioned judgments by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench would be subject to appeal, if any.”
Resisting the Contempt Case, counter affidavit has already been filed, stating that the District Educational Officer, Kurnool, passed a speaking order, vide proceedings Rc.No.9761/B9/2016, dated 04.10.2018. Infact a copy of
2
the said order is filed along with the counter affidavit. A perusal of the said order reveals that the District Educational Officer, Kurnool, while observing that the request of the petitioner would run contrary to Section 2(ii) of Act No.34 of 2007 i.e., Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulations) (Amendment) Act 2007, rejected the claim of the petitioner.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said action of rejection is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the aforementioned legislation. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, that questioning the aforesaid order dated 04.10.2018, petitioner herein already filed W.P.No.45958 of 2018 and the said Writ Petition is pending consideration before this Court. It is very much clear from a reading of the order passed by the common High Court in W.P.No.2900 of 2001, that, while disposing of the Writ Petition as not pressed, the Division Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation. As stated supra, the request made by the petitioner in the representation, pursuant to the orders passed in the Writ Petition, came to be rejected and a Writ Petition has already been filed questioning the said action.
In view of the above reasons, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
3
As a Sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for
consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
_______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
15.03.2022 VSL
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.V. Sessa Sai
Ravi Cheemalapati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
