Allowed

Smt.S.Manamma v. Sri K. v.Ramanachari

Telangana HC3 Dec 2015CC/1043/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt of court case, the bench held that filing a Writ Appeal does not stay the original order and a respondent cannot question the order in a contempt counter. The court found the respondent guilty of willful disobedience of a directive for land acquisition.

What did the court decide?

Respondent sentenced to two months' imprisonment and fine of Rs.1500/-; petitioners to deposit subsistence allowance; order abeyance for four weeks.

Smt.S.Manamma Vs Sri K. v.Ramanachari — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

C.C.No.1043 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri N.V.Ramanujam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sharat Kumar SpecialGovernment Pleader for Sri V.Satyam Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶5

2. This Contempt Case has been filed alleging nonimplementation and willful disobedience of the order dt.30.01.2015 in W.P.No.28857 of 2014.

¶6

3. The said Writ petition was allowed by this Court directing the respondent along with the Government of Telangana to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquisition of the entire land of the petitioners for ‘open space’/park and pay compensation to the petitioners. It was further directed that the requisition for the said purpose should be sent by the respondent herein to the State of Telangana, Department of Municipal Administration within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the State of Telangana should initiate the process for acquisition within a period of one month thereafter and conclude the same within a period of three months.

¶7

4. Counsel for the petitioner states that copy of the order dt.30.01.2015 in W.P.No.28857 of 2014 was sent to the respondent by post and it was received by the respondent on 11.02.2015. This was not disputed by respondent.

¶8

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that a Writ Appeal SR.No.76697 of 2015 has been filed against the order passed in the Writ Petition with a petition to condone the delay in filing it. Certain averments were made in the counter affidavit on the merits of the case. No where in the counter affidavit has the respondent explained why he could not carry out the order dt.30-01-2015 in W.P.No.28857 of 2014.

¶9

6. It is settled law that mere filing of a Writ Appeal does not operate as a stay of the order passed in the Writ Petition. Also a respondent in the contempt case is not permitted to question the correctness of the order passed in the Writ petition by way of a counter in the contempt case or question it’s correctness.

¶10

7. I am therefore of the opinion that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the order dt.30-01-2015 in W.P.No.28857 of 2014.

¶11

8. Therefore, this Contempt Case is allowed and the respondent is sentenced to two months’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1500/-. (Rupees One thousand and Five hundred only). The petitioners shall deposit subsistence allowance @ Rs.250/- per day within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order is kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from today.

¶12

9. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶14

Date: 03-12-2015

¶15

kvr

Smt.S.Manamma v. Sri K. v.Ramanachari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.S.Manamma v. Sri K. v.Ramanachari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anandam M, Vs The Osmania University

M/s. Taj Baba and Co. Vs The State of Telangana

MIs. Malleswari Enterprizes, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Dr.T. Mahender Reddy, S/o. T. Yadagiri Reddy, Vs The Union of India

M/s. Manikanta Spinnig Mills (P) Limited Vs The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company

B.Purnachandra Reddy S/o. Ramachandra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana