The Twin Cities A.P. Govt. Drivers Central Association v. P.K.Mohanthi, I.A.S.

Telangana HC12 Sept 2013CC/1370/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case filed for alleged non-compliance with an order directing provision of alternative accommodation, the respondents clarified via affidavit that accommodation was allotted and handed over. The court, noting the respondents had purged the contempt, closed the case without proceeding against them.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; no proceedings taken against respondents as they purged contempt.

The Twin Cities A.P. Govt. Drivers Central… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

Contempt Case No.1370 of 2013

¶3

Dated 1 2 th September, 2013 Between: The Twin Cities A.P.Government Drivers Central Association …Petitioner and Sri P.K.Mohanthi and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Das for Sri K.Sreenivas Counsel for the respondents: GP for GAD The Court made the following:

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order, dated 19.10.2011, in W.P.No.21336 of 2011. The petitioner herein filed the above-mentioned writ petition questioning G.O.Rt.No.2356, GAD (SB.1), dated 30.05.2011, whereby respondent No.2 has cancelled the accommodation allotted to the petitioner without providing any alternative accommodation by re-allotting the same to respondent No.3 in the writ petition. This Court while disposing of the writ petition permitted the petitioner to make a suitable representation to provide alternative accommodation to it outside the Secretariat premises within a period of two weeks and within one month thereafter, respondent No.1 was directed to provide an alternative accommodation to the petitioner outside the Secretariat premises. As this order has not been complied with, the petitioner filed this contempt case.

¶6

On 27.08.2013, the learned Government Pleader for GAD stated that an order was passed on 02.09.2013 allotting a room of 400 sft., in the ground floor of Government Building located beside Central Ware Housing Corporation at Patelnagar, Nampally, Hyderabad and the same was handed over to the petitioner under panchanama, dated 04.09.2013. The contempt case was adjourned to enable the respondent to file a counter affidavit explaining the delay in implementing the order of this Court. Accordingly, respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has explained the reasons for the delay.

¶7

Even though this Court is not fully convinced with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed by respondent No.2, considering the fact that the respondents have purged the contempt, if any committed by them by providing alternative accommodation to the petitioner, atleast after coming to know of filing of the contempt case, this Court does not propose to proceed further against the respondents in contempt.

¶8

The contempt case is accordingly closed.

¶9

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶10

12^th September, 2013 VGB

The Twin Cities A.P. Govt. Drivers Central Association v. P.K.Mohanthi, I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Twin Cities A.P. Govt. Drivers Central Association v. P.K.Mohanthi, I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Hashmath Bee, Vs The Tahsiidar

Pangi Pandurangaswami Vs District Collector

A.P.NGOs Association, Vs he Govt. of A.P.

K.J.Natrajan Vs Sub Collector

Kanumuri Bharathi W/o Krishnam Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chittboina Hari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collector