Disposed

V.S.R.Sastry, v. Sri B.Venkatesam

Telangana HC2 Sept 2015CC/1261/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Contempt Case No.1261 of 2015, the Court disposed of a petition alleging violation of directions issued in WPMP.No.48593 of 2013. The Court held that no time frame was prescribed for passing final orders in the earlier order. A letter from the Government of Telangana was placed on record assuring a decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was disposed of and additional two months were granted to the respondents to pass final orders. The pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

V.S.R.Sastry, Vs Sri B.Venkatesam — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA CONTEMPT CASE No.1261 of 2015

¶2

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶3

This Contempt Case, under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is filed alleging that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 27.01.2014 in WPMP.No.48593 of 2013 in W.P.No.39119 of 2013.

¶4

In W.P.No.39119 of 2013, the respondents herein have questioned the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1052 of 2012. While granting interim suspension, this Court permitted the petitioner herein to submit his explanation to the show cause notice and such explanation was directed to be considered by the respondents while passing final orders.

¶5

In this writ petition, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of specific orders passed by this Court on 27.01.2014, the respondents have not chosen to pass any orders till date, and the petitioner is also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2010.

¶6

In the order, dated 27.01.2014, no time frame was prescribed for passing of the final orders by the respondents. In such event, it cannot be said that the

¶7

respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶8

During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed on record letter, dated 26.07.2014, issued by the Assistant Secretary to Government, Home (SC-B) Department, Government of Telangana.

¶9

We have perused the said letter, in which it is stated that after considering the matter, appropriate decision will be taken and the same will be intimated in due course to the petitioner. In view of the same, we hope and trust that appropriate final orders will be passed by the respondents within a period of two months from today, if not already passed.

¶10

Subject to the above, the Contempt Case stands disposed of.

¶11

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

¶12

___________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶13

________________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶14

02.09.2015 v v

V.S.R.Sastry, v. Sri B.Venkatesam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.R.Sastry, v. Sri B.Venkatesam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.G Mahesh Poultry Farm, Vs State Bank of India

Bojja Rama Rao, Vs Andhra Bank

Smt. K.B.S.Prameela Singh Vs The State Bank of India

M/s Sanman Homes Private Limited, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Alamanda Satyanarayana Vs State Bank of India, Rep.by its Chief Manager

M/s. Arun Kumar Engineering, Vs State Bank of India