Contempt case arising from a Tribunal order, where the Government had already filed W.P.No.14018 of 2018 with interim suspension of the Tribunal order. The Court closed the contempt case, leaving the petitioners free to move afresh after disposal of the writ petition, 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.
1
APHC010264492023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3459]
THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CONTEMPT CASE TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 423/2023
Between:
K Chaitanya Bharathi and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Praveen Kumar I A S and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.P VEERABHADRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.SUSHMA YAGANTI
The Court made the following:
Order:
Sri P.Veerabhadra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that against the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
in O.A.No.847of 2018, dated 30.04.2018, the Government has preferred a writ petition vide W.P.No.14018 of 2018 and an interim suspension was ordered by this Court in the said writ petition.
2
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM,J
Dated: 03.10.2024 NNN
3
04
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
CONTEMPT CASE TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 423/2023
03.10.2024
NNN
K Chaitanya Bharathi and Others
Praveen Kumar I A S and Others
Sumathi Jagadam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
