In this contempt case, the petitioner alleged violation of a previous order regarding disposal of representations. The court held that while the disposal order might be erroneous, its validity cannot be challenged in contempt jurisdiction and directed petitioner to approach appropriate proceedings.
The contempt case is dismissed; no costs.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
C.C.No.1152 OF 2015
O R D E R
This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of order dated 04.03.2015 passed in W.P.No.4747 of 2015 where in this Court directed the respondent authorities to dispose of the representations dated 23.07.2012 and 09.01.2015 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing counsel for the respondents produced proceedings dated 15.07.2015 issued by Assistant City Planner wherein it is stated that petitioner’s representations were considered and disposed of.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on earlier occasions all the respondents recommended for grant of compensation for laying of drainage pipe line and now it is rejected with malafide intention. On the face of it, it appears that the order passed is erroneous and against the order passed by this Court.
In this case, it is to be seen that this Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representations of the petitioner and the respondents have complied with the order passed by this Court by disposing of the representations made by the petitioner. May be the order passed by the respondents is wrong order, but in the contempt jurisdiction, the validity of the order cannot be decided and the same can be challenged through appropriate proceedings.
In view of the above, I do not see any violation of the order passed by this Court. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the respondents through appropriate proceedings. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J Date: 14.08.2015 dv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents violated the court order by passing an erroneous disposal order on the petitioner's representations.
Petitioner
Respondents
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
