The court held that challenging an allegedly erroneous administrative order requires appropriate legal remedy, not contempt proceedings. Leave granted to challenge the order via proper channels; contempt case closed.
Leave granted to challenge the order dated 22.05.2010 via appropriate legal remedy; contempt case closed.
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.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
Contempt Case No. 640 of 2010
Dated: 06.10.2010
Between:
Maganti Chandramma and 33 others. … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Land Acquisition Department, Hyderabad and 4 others. … Respondents
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
Contempt Case No. 640 of 2010
O R D E R :
This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the interim order passed by this Court dated 29.12.2009 in W.P.No.28329 of 2009, whereunder the 4th respondent was directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 14.09.2009 in accordance with law within a period of six weeks.
When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is represented by the learned Government Pleader that the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, having considered the petitioner’s representation, passed an order dated 22.05.2010. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No.4 to that effect.
Even assuming that the said order is erroneous on any ground whatsoever, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law, but it is not a case for taking cognisance under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 22.05.2010, if so advised, the contempt case is closed.
______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 06.10.2010 KLP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a procedural order by a respondent is a fit case for contempt proceedings or should be challenged through appropriate legal remedy.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maganti Chandramma and 33 others
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Land Acquisition Department, Hyderabad and 4 others
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
