This order closes a contempt case for willful disobedience of an interim suspension order. The Additional Advocate General submitted that the respondent was ready to comply, leaving nothing for adjudication.
Nothing survives for further adjudication; the contempt case is 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 SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
C.C. No. 957 of 2010
O R D E R:
This contempt case is filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of respondent No.1 in implementing the orders passed by this Court in WPMP No. 33473 of 2009 in W.P. No. 25699 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010 whereunder the operation of Proceedings Rc.No. A1/DTWO/844/2008 dated 20.12.2009 of 5th respondent with a direction to 2nd respondent to forward the proposals for release of grant-in-aid to the Central Government for the years from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010 in favour of the petitioner Society, was suspended.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the interim suspension as granted above, petitionerSociety is automatically entitled for forwarding of its application to the Central Government. In fact, the order suspended was only an enquiry that was sought to be conducted against the petitioner and not as to sending of report etc.
Be that as it may, learned Additional Advocate General Sri Satya Prasad submitted that the respondent No.1 is ready to forward the application filed by the petitioner with whatever recommendation as required under the law, by recording its opinion, within a period of four weeks from today.
In view of the same, nothing survives for further adjudication in the contempt case. It is accordingly closed.
JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU.
Date: 20-12-2010. MVB.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt case filed for willful disobedience in implementing prior interim suspension orders requires further adjudication.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioner Society
Respondent No.1
C. V. Ramulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
