In this contempt case concerning alleged disobedience to an order directing the Municipal Commissioner to fix a boundary, the court noted that while there was some delay, there was no evidence of wilfulness. The contempt petition was dismissed as no jurisdiction was warranted.
Contempt case dismissed. No costs.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
CONTEMPT CASE No.372 of 2012 in WRIT PETITION No.1742 of 2012
Date: April 19, 2012
Between:
K. Hemanth Kumar … Petitioner And Neela Kanta Reddy, Commissioner, The Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Anantapur, Anantapur District. … Respondent
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
CONTEMPT CASE No.372 of 2012 in WRIT PETITION No.1742 of 2012
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent.
2. This contempt case is filed alleging disobedience to the order dated 27.01.2012 passed in W.P. No.1742 of 2012.
3. The petitioner filed W.P. No.1742 of 2012 seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to construct a compound wall by
encroaching 20 feet road out of 40 feet road towards eastern side of Plot Nos.51 and 52 in Sy.No.284/1, situated at Jesus Nagar, Anantapur, Anantapur District without any right or title, as illegal and contrary to the approved layout in L.P. No.456 of 1985 and consequently direct the respondents not to encroach the 40 feet road towards eastern side of petitioner’s plot No.51 and 52 in Sy.No.284/1, situated at Jesus Nagar, Anantapur, Anantapur District as per the approved layout in L.P. No.456 of 1985. By order dated 27.01.2012, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the first respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner for fixing the boundary between petitioner’s plots and municipal land and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by this Court has been complied with and in proof thereof he placed before the court the endorsement made by the Commissioner, Anantapur Municipal Corporation. The operative portion of the endorsement reads as under:
“In obedience to the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court, A.P., Hyderabad, in the reference cited above, a detailed survey has been conducted with reference to the L.P. No.456/85 in Sy.No.284/1 of Anantapur
Municipal Corporation. As per the existing roads demarcated on the ground, the compound wall constructed by the Municipal Corporation to safeguard the reserve open space left for public purpose and it is under development of part is coming in the 40’-0” wide road to a width of 15’-0” wide towards eastern side of petitioners plot. The detailed sketch plan is herewith enclosed.”
5. Though there is some delay in the disposal of the petitioner’s representation in the context of the time frame stipulated by this Court, there is no evidence of any wilful disobedience to the said order warranting exercise of contempt jurisdiction by this Court.
6. Viewed thus, there is no wilful disobedience to the order dated 27.01.2012 in W.P. No.1742 of 2012 passed by this Court. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
_____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J
Date: April 19, 2012. BSB
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
CONTEMPT CASE No.372 of 2012 in WRIT PETITION No.1742 of 2012
Date: April 19, 2012
BSB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is wilful disobedience to the order dated 27.01.2012 warranting contempt jurisdiction.
Whether the delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation amounts to wilful disobedience.
K. Hemanth Kumar
Neela Kanta Reddy
G. Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
