A.Hari Singh, v. Sri. I.O.R.Krishna Rao, I.A.S.
Case brief
What is this about?
In a contempt case alleging violation of directions regarding medical expense reimbursement, the Court noted that the Respondents had issued a sanction letter authorizing the payment of Rs.9,300/- as per the direction.
What did the court decide?
The contempt case was closed as the respondents had taken steps to comply with the court's directions by sanctioning the payment.
What the court decided
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
CONTEMPT CASE No.756 of 2014
Order: (Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)
This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) alleging that the respondents have violated the directions of this Court in the order dated 30.10.2013 passed in W.P.No.32973 of 2010.
By the aforesaid order, this Court issued directions to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.9,300/- to the 2nd petitioner towards reimbursement of medical expenses.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader has produced a copy of letter dated 17.06.2014 passed vide proceedings CCLA’s Ref.No.Services.III(2)/09/14, addressed by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, based on the orders of the Collector, Guntur District, according sanction for payment of Rs.9,300/-, as per the directions of this Court. A perusal of the said letter indicates that the respondents have taken steps for payment of a sum of Rs.9,300/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses in compliance of the directions of this Court.
In that view of the matter, we deem, it is not a fit case to
proceed further.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Respondents complied with the direction of this Court to pay reimbursement of medical expenses.
Coram
R. Subhash Reddy
A. Shankar Narayana
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · June
- Registered
- Case no.
- CC/756/2014
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court