Disposed

K Ch Sekhar v. Shri Ch Dwaraka Tirumala Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Sept 2024CC/850/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition alleged violation of interim orders. The Court found the respondents had reinstated the petitioner and apologized for delay. Holding that orders were complied with, the Court closed the contempt case and granted liberty to challenge further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed. Petitioner granted liberty to challenge subsequent proceedings if filed by way of appropriate petition. No costs.

K Ch Sekhar Vs Shri Ch Dwaraka Tirumala Rao — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 850 OF 2024

¶6

Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents herein for intentional, willful and deliberate violation of the orders passed by Hon’ble High Court in LA.No. 1 of 2023 in W. P. No. 2990 of 2023 on 08.02.2023,punish the respondents herein suitably.

¶7

Between:

¶8

K CH Sekhar, S/o K.S.M.Raju, 43 Years, E-700599, Mechanic,^D.No. 1076, Kesara Cheruvu, near Head Post Office, Jangareddygudem,^West Godavari District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Shri CH Dwaraka Tirumala Rao, Commissioner Public Transport Department AND Ex Officio Managing Director, APSRTC, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada.

¶12

Shri P.V.V.Gangadhara Rao, Depot Manager, APSRTC Jangareddygudem depot. West Godavari District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. A G Satyanarayana^Rao

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

APHC010070972024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 050 AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0 i>r=

¶18

[3329]

¶19

THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 850/2024

Between:

K Oh Sekhar

...PETITIONER

AND

Shri Ch Dwaraka Tirumala Rao and Others

¶27

...CONTEMNOR(S)

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

A G SATYANARAYANA RAO

¶30

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶31

1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned^{counselforthe} Respondents. for wilful 2. This contempt case is filed against the Respondents disobedience of the orders dated 08.02.2023 passed^{bythisCourtinl.A.No.1} of 2023 in W.P.No.2990 of 2023.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the^{Respondentshave} reinstated the petitioner into service and complied^{withtheordersdated}

¶36

08,02.2023 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.2990 of 2023. He further submits that while reinstating the petitioner into service, the Respondents/ the District Public Transport Officer, NTR District, Vijayawada passed an prder vide proceedings No.PA/675(27)/2024-DPTO/WG, dated 27.08.2024, wherein it is observed that withholding the petitioner’s annual increment for a period of two years which shall have an effect on his future increments as a measure of punishment. It is further stated that the period from the date of removal of petitioner to till the date of reinstatement, the petitioner reports for duty is treated as “Not on Duty” for the purpose of leave and increments.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner further sought for liberty of this Court to challenge the Respondents proceedings or subsequent proceedings or for filing appropriate petition, if any.

¶38

Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Respondents have complied with the orders of this Court and brought to the notice of this Court that, pending Writ Petition i.e.W.P.No.2990 of 2023, the Respondents have passed a separate order vide proceedings dated 27.08.2024 and reinstated the petitioner into service. He further tendered his unconditional apology on behalf of the Respondents for causing abnormal delay in complying the orders of this Court. 6. In view of the compliance of the orders of this Court and unconditional apology tendered by the Respondents, no further orders are required to be passed in the contempt case.

¶39

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed and the petitioner^isgranted liberty to challenge the proceedings, if any or subsequent^{proceedingsbyfiling}

¶40

appropriate petition, if any. No costs.

¶41

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending^{inthecontempt}

¶42

case shall stand closed.

¶43

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

Sd/- M. RAMESH^ABU DEPUTY REQfSTRAR 0:

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To,

¶48

Shri CH Dwaraka Tirumala Rao, Commissioner Public Transport^Department AND Ex Officio Managing Director, APSRTC, Pandit Nehru^BusStation, Vijayawada.

¶49

Shri P.V.V.Gangadhara Rao, Depot Manager, APSRTC Jangareddygudem depot. West Godavari District.

¶50

One CC to Sri. A G Satyanarayana Rao Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

One CC to Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

5 Two CD Copies

stu

HIGH COURT

DATED: 12/09/2024

ORDER

CC.No.850 of 2024

1° 0 6 JAN 2025 S
. Curreni S«cuon ^ ^

¶60

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

K Ch Sekhar v. Shri Ch Dwaraka Tirumala Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Ch Sekhar v. Shri Ch Dwaraka Tirumala Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chittor Aravind Vs the Union of India

Kallam Ramanji Reddy Vs B.Raja Sekhar,Ias

Kantheti Kishore Raju, Vs The Union of India

K Kambagiri Swamy Vs Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar IAS

K.v.v.S.Ch.Sekhar Vs Shri Ch.Dwaraka Tirumala Rao

Kalla Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh