Disposed

Dasari Santha Kumari, v. Sri Harinarayana I.A.S.

Telangana HC2 Dec 2016CC/1494/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt matter filed for alleged violation of previous orders regarding construction permissions, the court found no violation as the petitioner had not received notification. The petitioner was directed to submit documents and the respondent was to pass orders within two weeks of receipt. The contempt case was disposed of, closing related misc. petitions.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case disposed of; petitioner directed to produce documents within two weeks; respondent to pass orders thereafter.

Dasari Santha Kumari, Vs Sri Harinarayana I.A.S. — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY Contempt Case No.1494 OF 2016

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This Contempt Case is filed seeking to punish the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful violation of the orders of this Court in WP No.29702 of 2015 dated 11.09.2015.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Laxminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-GVMC.

¶5

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though this Court, by an order dated 11.09.2015 directed the respondent to dispose of the applications of the petitioner dated 16.03.2014 and 06.04.2015 for grant of permission for construction of compound wall, the same have not been considered and no orders are passed.

¶6

Now counter affidavit is filed stating that already petitioner was informed about compliance and asked the petitioner to submit the building plan and the link documents of the property under endorsement No.330/2015, dated 21.04.2015. Even after passing of the orders in Writ Petition, again proceedings were initiated on 09.11.2015 asking the petitioner to produce the relevant documents as per G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2012 for taking further action in the matter.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received any letter dated 09.11.2015. But a

¶8

copy of the endorsement filed goes to show that it was dispatched on 10.11.2015.

¶9

In view of the same, I do not see any violation of the orders passed by this Court. However, it is open for the petitioner to produce necessary documents as per endorsement dated 09.11.2015 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing, the respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter, in accordance with law.

¶10

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.

¶11

____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 02.12.2016 kvs

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶13

Contempt Case No.1494 OF 2016

¶14

Date: 02 .12.2016

¶15

kvs

Dasari Santha Kumari, v. Sri Harinarayana I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Santha Kumari, v. Sri Harinarayana I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Padmavathi Colony Welfare Association, Vs The District Collector

Sri. Nalla Veera Prasad Vs The Inspector General (Registration)

Anne Ramesh, Vs The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams)

Smt.K.v.Ramanamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Smt.T.Saraswatamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

M.N. Somasekhar, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director