Dismissed

Shaik Kalesha v. Smt. Neetu Kumari Prasad

Telangana HC28 Dec 2012CC/579/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging failure to comply with previous writ directions. The Court found no substance in the claim that an order dated 10.08.2012 was passed contemptuously without notice, noting Section 5 provided for representation. The case did not rule on the underlying order's validity.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner discharged from contempt proceedings; no costs awarded to either party.

Shaik Kalesha Vs Smt. Neetu Kumari Prasad — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No. 579 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 28.12.2012

¶4

Between: Shaik Kalesja … Petitioner AND Smt.Neetu Kumari Prasad and another ... Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE No. 579 of 2012

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This court disposed of W.P.No.26611 of 2011 with the following

¶9

directions:

¶10

“In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada to submit his remarks, if not already submitted within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this

¶11

order. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent shall pass appropriate orders following due process of law within eight (8) weeks thereafter. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada is made as a respondent to this writ petition suo motu. Let this order be communicated to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada also. No costs.

¶12

This contempt case was filed on 18.4.2012 alleging that the respondents failed to comply with the order of this court and therefore, they

¶13

are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶14

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada stating that a report was submitted to the District Collector on 20.7.2012 with the record of enquiry and thereafter, the District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada issued proceedings dated 10.08.2012 as directed by this court. It is also stated that the delay in compliance with the order of this Court is only for administrative reasons and unconditional apology has been tendered for the delay.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as per the direction of this court in W.P.No.26611 of 2011, the District Collector is bound to pass an appropriate order following due process of law which means that an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner before passing the order dated 10.8.2012.

¶17

While submitting that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the order dated 10.8.2012, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 10.8.2012, cannot be held to be passed following due process of law in compliance with the order of this court. However the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision either under the A.P. (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 or the Rules made thereunder which provides for notice and an opportunity of hearing to the complainant before passing an order for cancellation under Section 5 of the Act. As could be seen, Section 5 merely provides that if the District Collector is satisfied that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, the certificate shall be cancelled after giving the person against whom the allegation is made an opportunity of making a representation.

¶18

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any substance in the contention that the action of the respondents in passing the order dated 10.8.2012 without notice to the petitioner is contemptuous and therefore, they are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶19

However this court shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion as to the validity and legality of the order dated 10.8.2012 and it is

¶20

always open to the petitioner to challenge the said order by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law, if so advised. Subject to the liberty granted above, the Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶21

_____________ G.ROHINI, J Date: 28.12.2012 Ivd/Pab/Klp

Shaik Kalesha v. Smt. Neetu Kumari Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Kalesha v. Smt. Neetu Kumari Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Erla Nambaiah Vs Sri Ch. Narasimha Reddy

Pampari Anjaneyulu Vs Sri Ch. Narasimha Reddy

Gade Mallaiah, Vs Sri Ch. Narasimha Reddy

The Cloth Merchants Association, Vs Mohammed Abdul Azeem

B.Ramesh Vs Sri a. C. Punitha , S/o not known to the petitioner

Chatla Chandrasekhar Vs Maheswar Reddy