The High Court closed a contempt case after confirming that the underlying order was complied with by issuing the required notices and demolishing the illegal construction.
The Contempt Case is closed; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CONTEMPT CASE No.1736 OF 2014
Between: J.Ram Mohan Rao, S/o Rama Swamy, Software Engineer, H.No.8-12-35, Street No.8, Brindavan Nagar, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.
… Petitioner
And
Sri Somesh Kumar, Commissioner, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad & another.
… Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 31.07.2015
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
| THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RAN |
GANATHAN |
|
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No.1736 of 2014
ORDER:
The order, violation of which is alleged in this Contempt Case, is the order passed in W.P.No.16218 of 2014 dated 20.06.2014 wherein this Court recorded the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC that a notice, under Section 452(1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), was issued to the third respondent; the third respondent was called upon to show cause why action should not be initiated against her for the illegal construction made by her; her reply, under Section 452 (1) of the Act, is awaited; and the GHMC would take action in accordance with law after giving the third respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the Contempt Case, it is stated that a show cause notice was issued, under Section 452 (2) of the Act, on 09.12.2014 to the third respondent; and, after final notice was issued under Section 636 of the Act, the construction of the third respondent was demolished.
It is evident from the counter-affidavit that the order of this Court has been complied with. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
31st July, 2015. Tsy
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt case can be closed upon submission that the underlying order was complied with.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
J.Ram Mohan Rao
Sri Somesh Kumar
Ramesh Ranganathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
