Oral order adjourning a contempt case regarding alleged violation of interim orders due to pending main writ petition.
The contempt case was 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 N.V. RAMANA
C.C. No. 1636 of 2009
Oral order:
Alleging that the respondent No.1 in violation of the interim order dated 25.09.2009 made by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.27087 of 2009 in W.P. No.20795 of 2009, has made constructions in contravention of the sanctioned plan, and thereby committed contempt of the orders of this Court, filed this contempt case praying the Court to punish respondent No.1 for contempt.
The matter was adjourned several times. This Court on 31.12.2010, directed the Assistant City Planner, Circle No.10, GHMC, who was impleaded as respondent No.2 to inspect the building being constructed by respondent No.1 and submit a status report.
Respondent No.2, having inspected the building, submitted status report dated 28.01.2011 stating that he inspected the building being constructed by respondent No.1. That respondent No.1 constructed building consisting of stilt + three upper floors and two room in the fourth floor and the same was occupied by respondent No.1 and that there was no construction activity going on at the site.
That earlier on receipt of complaint from the petitioner, they have issued show cause notice dated 25.08.2009 under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 to respondent No.1, and that questioning the said notice, respondent No.1 filed suit in O.S. No. 4001 of 2009 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and obtained interim order. That they have submitted their para-wise remarks in the said suit.
The counsel for the petitioner, however filed reply to the status
report submitted by respondent No.1.
Since the main writ petition is pending adjudication before the Court, I do not wish to proceed further in the matter. The petitioner is at liberty to make a request to the learned Judge concerned for early disposal of the writ petition. He is at liberty to make use of all the materials, which he wants to, at the time of hearing of the main writ petition.
Accordingly, the contempt case is closed.
___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.
Dated: 17th February, 2012 KSR
Petitioner
Respondent No.1
Assistant City Planner, Circle No.10, GHMC
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
