In this contempt petition filed for disobedience of orders dated 17.12.2012 in a writ case, the commissioner acted by initiating FIRs. The High Court held that since appropriate action was taken, no further orders were warranted, dismissing the contempt petition and closing miscellaneous applications.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR AND
THE HON’BLR SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY
CONTEMPT CASE No.707 of 2013
BETWEEN
M. Sarangapani Naidu and another.
…PETITIONERS
AND
G. Balaramaiah, The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad.
…RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V.V.N. NARASIMHAM
Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
The Court made the following order:
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar)
This contempt case is filed alleging disobedience of the orders of this court in WP.No.32298 of 2011 dated 17.12.2012.
2. Counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner, Endowments wherein it is stated that appropriate disciplinary action as well as action under criminal law is initiated against those, who were identified as responsible for misappropriation and collection of funds. It is stated that FIR.No.92 of 2013 is already lodged on 29.04.2013 under Sections 420, 403, 406 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code before the Palamner Police Station against the person accused and the charges are also framed against the Executive Officers of the temple.
3. Since appropriate action, as directed under the orders of this Court in WP.No.32298 of 2011 dated 17.12.2012, is already initiated, no further orders are warranted in this contempt case.
The contempt case is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
___________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
September 12, 2014 DSK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition alleging disobedience of orders requires further action given that criminal proceedings were initiated.
Whether the contempt case filed for disobedience of earlier orders should be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Sarangapani Naidu
G. Balaramaiah
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
T. Sunil Chowdary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
