The single-judge High Court closed a contempt case alleging willful disobedience of an order requiring notice to the petitioner. The respondent admitted the noticing was illegal and promised to issue a fresh notice.
The memo dated 04.9.2014 was to be recalled, a fresh notice issued, and a fresh order passed; the Contempt Case is 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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.1372 of 2014
Date:07.8.2015
Between:
Mantrigari Leelavathi, W/o M.Narayana Rao
..... Petitioner
And:
Shadiya Begum
.....Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Jagan
Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue (TS)
The Court made the following: ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order, dated 13.9.2013, in Writ Petition No.12973 of 2012, whereby this Court has directed respondent No.4 in the said Writ Petition to dispose of the petitioner’s application for mutation of her name after giving notice to her.
Along with the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, he has filed copy of notice, dated 15.01.2014, a perusal of which shows that the petitioner was directed to be present for enquiry on the same day at 11 am. More than seven months later, the respondent has issued memo, dated 04.9.2014, rejecting the petitioner’s application.
At the hearing, Sri A.Jagan, learned counsel representing Sri G.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, complained and in my view rightly that the notice issued by the respondent asking his client to appear on the same day on which the notice was issued is wholly illegal and that by not serving proper notice on the petitioner, the respondent has violated the order of this Court which specifically directed him to issue notice to the petitioner before passing an order.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (TS) has fairly stated that as the notice issued by the predecessor of the respondent does not conform to the order of this Court, the respondent will issue a fresh notice and pass a fresh order after recalling the memo, dated 04.9.2014.
This fair submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is placed on record and the Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 07th August, 2015 DR
Mantrigari Leelavathi
Shadiya Begum
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
