Dismissed

R.Radha Krishna v. Sri Sunil Sarma

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Mar 2022CC/1867/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Amaravathi Bench) held an oral hearing in a 6-year-old contempt case alleging disobedience of a natural justice order regarding job appointment. With neither party present and relying on the respondent's affidavit citing Maoist bandhs, the Court closed the contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to revive the same if the cause of action still survives.

R.Radha Krishna Vs Sri Sunil Sarma — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

CONTEMPT CASE No.1867 of 2010

¶4

(Through physical mode)

¶5

R. Radha Krishna, S/o. Appala Swamy, C/o. V. Satya Rao, Kothilli Village & Post, Hukumpeta Mandalam, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sunil Sarma, Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.

¶9

…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. P. Lakshmana Rao Counsel for respondent No.1 : GP for Municipal Admn.& Urban Dev. Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. N. Ranga Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3 : GP for Social Welfare

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

Dt: 10.03.2022

¶12

This contempt case has been preferred alleging wilful disobedience to the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6787 of 2009.

¶13

Questioning the order passed by the authorities rejecting the petitioner’s case for appointment to the post of Mazdoor (General) on the ground that the certificates produced by him were not genuine and proposing to launch criminal prosecution against him, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition. Having observed that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside on the ground of gross violation

¶14

HCJ C.C.No.1867 of 2010

¶15

¶16

of principles of natural justice, this Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

¶17

“Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to conduct a detailed enquiry after issuing notice and examining witnesses, if any necessary, and record a finding there against and if it is found that the certificates produced by him are genuine one, the petitioner shall be appointed to the post of Mazdoor (General). This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the vacancies available as on today shall not be filled up and the criminal prosecution cannot be proceeded with.”

¶18

In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent in this contempt case, it is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid order, enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner, however, due to bandhs called by Maoists in the agency area where the enquiry was proposed to be conducted, the Enquiry Officer was not able to complete the enquiry. In addition to the above reason, it was further stated that the Enquiry Officer was also required to attend census and election works at the relevant point of time and therefore, the enquiry could not be completed within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶19

No reply was filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid counter-affidavit filed in March, 2011.

¶20

This contempt case is pending since December, 2010, and after 30.04.2011, the matter surfaced only today. Neither of the parties are represented today to apprise the Court as to the present status of the matter.

¶21

In these circumstances and having regard to the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, this Court deems it appropriate to close the contempt

¶22

HCJ C.C.No.1867 of 2010

¶23

¶24

case reserving liberty to the petitioner to revive the same if the cause of

¶25

action still survives.

¶26

Accordingly, the contempt case is closed with the aforesaid liberty. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶27

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ

¶28

IBL

R.Radha Krishna v. Sri Sunil Sarma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Radha Krishna v. Sri Sunil Sarma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Nanduri Janakli Ram, Vs M/S Sri Laxmli Venkateswara Real Estates

Dr. Nanduri Janaki Ram Vs M/S Oak Tree Constructions Private Limited

M/s.Alana Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/s.My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt., Ltd.

Meda Venkata Kumara Swamy Vs The Managing Director

K. Ramachandra Reddy, Vs Sr P.Ramakanth Reddy

Ttd Class-Iv Employees Union Vs Sri.D.K.Adikesavulu