Dismissed

Nallam Venkata Lakshmi v. Mr. Rahul Bojja

Telangana HC12 Sept 2014CC/473/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a contempt petition alleging disobedience of orders in a PIL concerning cement distribution. The court found that departmental enquiries were initiated for lapses and recovery actions were warranted, concluding that the earlier directions were substantially complied with. The contempt case was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is dismissed; miscellaneous applications stand closed; no order as to costs.

Nallam Venkata Lakshmi Vs Mr. Rahul Bojja — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 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.473 of 2013

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Nallam Venkata Lakshmi.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Mr. Rahul Bojja, The District Collector, Warangal District.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. PULLA RAO YELLANKI

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE

¶15

MR. D.V. SUDHIR KUMAR

¶16

The Court made the following order:

¶17

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

¶18

This contempt case is filed alleging disobedience of the orders of this court in PIL.No.332 of 2012 dated 01.10.2012.

¶19

2. Learned Government Pleader has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the then District Collector, who states that as soon as the complaint of the petitioner was received, the same was enquired through the Deputy

¶20

Executive Engineer vide memo dated 13.08.2012 and physical verification as well as verification of records was taken up. It is stated that as the report of the enquiry, which was conducted, revealed lapses, disciplinary action as well as recovery action was warranted and notices have been issued. Paras 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit are, therefore, extracted hereunder:

¶21

“4. That as far as misuse of (1800) bags of cement is concerned, it is submitted that, a total number of (7820) bags of cement were issued to beneficiaries, of which only (675) bags are found deviated i.e. not issued to beneficiaries. Responsibility with regard to the same has been fixed against 1) Sri N. Shankar Babu, the-then Asst. Engineer Nellikudur (M) presently working at Adilabad District and 2) Sri P. Chenderlal, the then Mandal-In-Charge (Housing), Nellikudur Mandal presently working at Nekkonda Mandal as Mandal-In-Charge (Housing) and 3) Sri G.S. Nageshwar Rao, the-then Incharge Assistnat Engineer, Nellikudur Mandal and Dy. Executive Engineer (housing), Maripeda Sub Division and presently working as Executive Engineer (Housing) in Adilabad District and departmental action is being initiated. As a part of departmental enquiry, Show Cause Notices have been issued to all the aforesaid the then housing officials of Nellikudur Mandal vide Show Cause Notice No.D/884/2009/II/HC, dt. 20.07.2013 of the Project Director (Housing), Warangal.

¶22

5 . That the facts and figures of applicant in this Public Interest Litigation that the identification of (424) beneficiaries and sanction of total amount of Rs.1,60,72,000/-, first Phase release of Rs.8,60,000/out of which receipt of Rs.4,50,000/- by the beneficiaries and misuse of Rs.4,10,000/- by the respondents No.4 to 6 in collusion with the housing authorities are found to be correct. The details of which are furnished by conducting enquiry.

¶23

Hence, the contention of the petitioner is not correct.”

¶24

3. In view of the steps taken including the steps taken for identification of the misuse of cement bags, which are quantified at 675, as stated in para 7 of the counter and the action contemplated against the delinquent officials as well as for recovery, as noted above, in our view, the directions of this court in PIL.No.332 of 2012 have been substantially complied with. Hence, no further orders are necessary to be passed in the contempt case.

¶25

The contempt case is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶27

___________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶28

September 12, 2014 DSK

Nallam Venkata Lakshmi v. Mr. Rahul Bojja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nallam Venkata Lakshmi v. Mr. Rahul Bojja

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

Sudheer Bandari, Vs G.Vikramsimha Reddy

Banne Buchappa Vs Mr. Subrahmanyam

Nirmala, Vs Smt. a. Vani Prasad

M.Sarangapani Naidu, Vs G. Balaramaiah

G. Kagannata Reddy, Vs Sri. Girija Sankar

Sri.M.N.Rao Vs Sri.M.T.KrishnaBabu