High Court dismissed a contempt petition after finding that the respondent had complied with the previous order by considering the petitioner's representation and rejecting it via a reasoned order communicated on record.
Contempt case dismissed; petitioner allowed to challenge the order of rejection separately.
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
FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
CONTEMPT CASE No.1279 of 2012
(Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated 14.03.2012 in WP.No.6606 of 2012.)
BETWEEN:
Ganguala Rama Rao.
... PETITIONER
AND
Rear. Admial Nanda Kumar Misra, NM, Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. SARVABHOUMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: MR. D. RAVISHANKAR MR. P. NAGESWAR RAO
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging disobedience of order of this Court in WP.No.6066 of 2012 dated 14.03.2012 wherein the respondent was directed to consider petitioner’s representations as per rules and regulations
and pass appropriate orders preferably before 31.03.2012 and communicate it to the petitioner.
2. In response to the notice ordered, the respondent has filed counter affidavit together with a copy of the order dated 28.03.2012 wherein the petitioner’s representation, as directed by this Court, was considered. Para 9 of the counter affidavit further shows that in due compliance with the order of this Court, the said representation was considered and on merits, the same was rejected by issuing reasoned order dated 28.03.2012 and the same was communicated to the petitioner by sending to his residential address by registered post with acknowledgment due and the order was also pasted on the notice board.
3. In view of the above, therefore, the respondent having already complied with the order, nothing further remains to be considered in the contempt case.
The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is, however, at liberty to question the said order of rejection of his representation, in accordance with law, if he is so aggrieved. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
October 12, 2012 DSK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent lodged sufficient compliance to quash the contempt proceedings filed for alleged disobedience of a court order.
Ganguala Rama Rao
Rear. Admial Nanda Kumar Misra
VILAS V AFZULPURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
