Dismissed

Sudheer Bandari, v. G.Vikramsimha Reddy

Telangana HC14 Aug 2014CC/1377/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case challenging demolitions made by the Municipal Commissioner, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh found that objectionable constructions were already demolished. Consequently, the court held the petitioner had no subsisting grievance and dismissed the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed; miscellaneous applications closed; no order as to costs.

Sudheer Bandari, Vs G.Vikramsimha Reddy — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR AND

¶5

THE HON’BLR SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE No.1377 of 2013

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Sudheer Bhandari.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

G. Vikramsimha Reddy and another.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SRINIVAS REDDY BALAKISTI Counsel for the Respondent: MR. P. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY

¶14

The Court made the following order:

¶15

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar)

¶16

The first respondent is present in the Court and counter affidavit is filed on his behalf.

¶17

2. Second respondent though served, nobody appears nor the person is present personally. So far as second respondent is concerned, bailable warrant has to go for ensuring his appearance. However, in view of the subsequent developments, we are not adopting to such course in the present case.

¶18

3. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, who is Municipal Commissioner, states in para 5 as follows:

¶19

“5. In reply to Para 3 and 4 of the contempt case I submit that as stated supra the demolition of encroachment portion is took place on 2.2.2013 itself ie., before passing the orders by this Hon’ble Court in PIL No.409/2012. It is not true to say that with the collusion of the first respondent with the

¶20

2^nd respondent there is no removal of encroachment portion. I submit that on 2.3.2013 itself the demolition took place. As stated in my counter affidavit, in fact the 2^nd respondent herein encroached 1 ft x 30 ft government land and after noticing the same the municipality has demolished the encroached portion on 2.2.2013.”

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that apart from the said demolition, referred to in the counter affidavit, as extracted above, all the objectionable constructions are already demolished and that the petitioner has no more subsisting grievance in the matter.

¶22

In view of that, therefore, the contempt case is dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no

¶23

order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J ___________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J August 14, 2014 DSK

Sudheer Bandari, v. G.Vikramsimha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheer Bandari, v. G.Vikramsimha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banne Buchappa Vs Mr. Subrahmanyam

Nirmala, Vs Smt. a. Vani Prasad

Sri Bhavana Rishi Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Vs Shri K. Narender Reddy

Nallam Venkata Lakshmi Vs Mr. Rahul Bojja

M.Sarangapani Naidu, Vs G. Balaramaiah

G. Kagannata Reddy, Vs Sri. Girija Sankar