Shaik Shafiullah, v. Sri G.Chinnaiah
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court held that the violation of a previous order by the respondent-Tahsildar was not willful or deliberate. The Court discharged the respondent and closed the contempt case, noting the petitioner's remedy lies in independent proceedings rather than contempt. Case closed. No costs.
What the court decided
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Contempt Case No.1207 of 2013
ORDER:
The order, violation of which is alleged in this contempt case, is the order dated 19.03.2013 passed in W.P.No.7282 of 2013. The said order merely required the respondent-Tahsildar to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner; and to pass orders thereon within two (2) months thereafter.
The fact that an order was passed is not in dispute. The submission of Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for th e petitioner, is that, though such an order was, in fact, passed, the revenue records still classify the subject lands as private patta lands, assigned lands and Government lands. The only obligation cast on the respondent, in terms of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, is to consider the representation, and pass orders. That has been complied with. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the subsequent action of the respondents, his remedy is only to institute independent proceedings, and not by way of a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act. The jurisdiction exercised by this Court, under the Contempt of Courts Act, is extremely limited. It is only if the order has been violated, and such violation is willful and deliberate, would action be required to be taken against the contemnor. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the order has been violated much less wilfully and deliberately. I see no reason to proceed against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed. The Contempt Applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order dated 19.03.2013 was willfully and deliberately violated justifying contempt proceedings.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Respondent Tahsildar
Coram
Ramesh Ranganathan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- CC/1207/2013
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court