Petitioner sought to hold respondent in contempt for alleged violation of an intermediate order. The court held that since the original writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, the interlocutory order no longer survived. Consequently, no contempt attachment exists.
The contempt case is closed with no order для penalties imposed.
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 RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.C.No.893 of 2010
ORDER:
It is represented by both Sri T.Ramesh Babu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, Standing Counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, that W.P.No.4946 of 2010 was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.3.2011. The present contempt case is filed alleging violation of an interlocutory order passed in W.P.No.4946 of 2010. As the main writ petition itself has been dismissed as withdrawn, the interlocutory order would not survive and as such the respondent cannot be said, as on date, to be in contempt of this Court.
The Contempt Case is closed.
_________ 4-3-2011
asp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent can be held in contempt after the main writ petition ensuring the impugned order has been dismissed as withdrawn.
Sri T.Ramesh Babu
Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
