Contempt petition filed for non-issuance of posting orders despite interim suspension. Respondent corporation issued order placing petitioner in duty after contempt case filing. Court closed the case as compliance occurred.
The contempt case is closed. No 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CONTEMPT CASE No. 1591 OF 2009
Between: Sri B.N.REddy AND
..... PETITIONER
Sri Ch.Appalanarayana
.....RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent:
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1591 OF 2009
O R D E R :
This contempt case is filed alleging violation of an interim order passed by this Court on 19.10.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.24814 of 2009 in W.P.No.18993 of 2009. The main writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Depot Manager, Visakhapatnam Rural Depot and Paderu depot, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Visakhapatnam dated 22.08.2009, whereunder the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Under the interim order dated 19.10.2009 the impugned order was suspended by this Court. This contempt case was filed on 11.11.2009 alleging that in spite of the interim suspension granted by this Court, the petitioner was not issued the posting orders.
In response to the notice issued in the contempt case, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation has placed before this Court the proceedings of the Depot Manager, Paderu, dated 18.11.2009, whereunder the petitioner was taken into duty immediately. Apparently, the said order was passed subsequent to the filing of the contempt case.
Be that as it may, now that the order has been complied with, no further enquiry is necessary in the Contempt Case and accordingly, the same is closed. No costs.
_____________ Date: 22.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J.
Ivd
Sri B.N.RReddy
Sri Ch.Appalanarayana
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
