Petitioner alleged non-compliance of directions in a writ petition regarding illegal construction. The court held that the contempt case is closed as the matter remains pending in the writ petition, leaving remedies to be pursued there.
Contempt case closed; no order as to 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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.616 OF 2010
ORDER:
Petitioner filed W.P. No.16728 of 2009 alleging that her immediate neighbours made constructions in deviation of the sanctioned plan and the respondent herein did not take any steps, though a representation was made. The writ petition was disposed of on
18-12-2009 directing the respondent herein to take steps within two (2) months from the date of receipt of that order.
2. This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the 1st respondent did not comply with the orders. Respondent filed counter - affidavit stating that in pursuance of the orders of this Court, site was inspected on
23-08-2010 and notice was served upon respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘GHMC Act’).
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. It is no doubt true that there is some delay on the part of the respondent herein in taking steps that were indicated in the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition. Notice under Section 452 of the GHMC Act was issued on 23-08-2010. Across the Bar, it is stated that respondents 2 and 3 have filed Writ Petition No.2214 of 2010 before this Court and that the petitioner herein is arrayed as a party.
5. Therefore, the Contempt Case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue her remedies in the pending writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
September 24, 2010. KTL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt case should be closed or revived to enforce the compliance of orders in the writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
