In a contempt case regarding alleged violation of an order prohibiting constructions, the Court was told that a stay was granted in a suit filed in lower court. Consequently, the Court disposed of the contempt petition with no costs and closed pending miscellaneous.
Contempt case disposed of with no costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
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 AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.C.No.1245 of 2015
Between:
Smt. R. Padmaja & another
… Petitioner/Appellant (s)
And
Mr. Somesh Kumar and 2 others
… Respondent (s)
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 12.08.2015
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
| THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEK |
ER REDDY |
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? |
Yes/No |
| 2 | Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals |
Yes/No |
| 3 | Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? |
Yes/No |
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
C.C.No.1245 OF 2015
O R D E R
This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of order dated 07.05.2015 passed in W.P.M.P.No.18562 of 2015 in W.P.No.14161 of 2015 where in this Court directed the respondent authorities to ensure that no constructions are made by the 4th respondent in violation of the approved plan and permission.
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the 4th respondent filed O.S.No.928 of 2015 along with IA.No.294 of 2015 where the Court below granted status-quo. As such, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities have violated the orders passed by this Court. However, it is the responsibility of the respondent authorities to get the stay vacated before the Court below by taking necessary steps and it is open for the petitioner to implead himself in the suit.
With the above direction, the contempt case is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J Date: 12.08.2015 dv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the alleged violation of the Court's order regarding prohibition of construction constitutes a punishable contempt.
What directions can be issued to petitioner to ensure the order is complied with.
Smt. R. Padmaja & another
Mr. Somesh Kumar and 2 others
A RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
