Dismissed

Sri S.Kondala Rao v. Sri D.Suresh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Oct 2022CC/1558/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the petitioner challenged non-implementation of an order directing completion of an application. The Court examined a communication from respondents stating a rival land claim and a pending writ petition, finding these circumstances excused the delay and dismissing the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Sri S.Kondala Rao Vs Sri D.Suresh — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No.1558 of 2022

Between:

S.Kondala Rao

.... Petitioner

And

1.D.Suresh,

Chief Urban Planner, Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Visakhapatnam, A.P.

¶9

2.A.Mallikarjuna, Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Visakhapatnam, A.P. .... Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.K.Gani Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.V.Surya Kiran Kumar, Standing Counsel for VMRDA & MUDA

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Surya Kiran

¶13

Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶14

The Contempt Case is filed aggrieved by non-implementation

¶15

of the Order dated 08.09.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.18577 of 2021. By the said Order, the Hon’ble Court while disposing of the Writ Petition, directed the petitioner to comply the shortfall as per the letter No.EDS/1167/2018/0068 dated 01.02.2019 issued by the 2^nd respondent and on such compliance by the petitioner, the respondents 2 and 3 therein were directed to complete the process of the application made by the petitioner as expeditiously as

¶16

possible, but not later than two months.

¶17

¶18

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said Orders have not been complied with, a perusal of the Communication dated 04.05.2022, a copy which is placed before this Court, would make it clear that the 2^nd respondent in compliance with the Order referred to, considered the said application of the petitioner and informed that there is a rival claim in respect of the land in question and Writ Petition No.23329 of 2020 is pending on the file of this Court. The petitioner was further advised to approach the competent Forum, since there is a dispute with regard to the ownership of the land.

¶19

In view of the said Communication, the allegation in the present Contempt Case that the Orders have not been complied with merits no acceptance. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶21

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶22

Date: 13.10.2022 BLV

¶23

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶25

C.C.No.1558 of 2022

¶26

Date: 13.10.2022

¶27

BLV

Sri S.Kondala Rao v. Sri D.Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S.Kondala Rao v. Sri D.Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mis. Mullangi Venkata Ratnam, Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (Apiic)

Pinninti Venkata Nagalakshmi Vs Smt.Y. Lakshmi, IAS

Burre Prabhunadh Prasada Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sure Srinivasulu Vs Manga Srinivasulu

Muppalla Balakrishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ratchamarri Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh