Dismissed

Chotla Mallaiah, Mancherial Dist. v. Subhani, Mancherial Dist.

Telangana HC15 Dec 2017CC/1753/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case, the court examined allegations that the General Manager of Singareni Collieries Company Limited disobeyed a prior directive to consider the petitioner's request for benefits quickly. The court accepted the respondent's explanation regarding a pending medical fitness assessment by the Corporate Medical Board as valid, concluding no violation occurred.

What did the court decide?

The respondent's submission on delay is accepted; the contempt case is closed; no costs awarded.

Chotla Mallaiah, Mancherial Dist. Vs Subhani… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No. 1753 of 2017

¶3

Date :15.12.2017

¶4

Between :

¶5

Chotla Mallaiah S/o Rangaiah 57 yrs SRP-3 & 3A mine, Srirampur area H No. 471, Naspur colony, Mancherial district

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

SDM, Subhani S/o Lal 55 years General Manager, Singareni Colleries company ltd, Srirampur division, Naspur mandal Mancherial district

¶9

Respondents

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶12

CONTEMPT CASE No. 1753 of 2017

¶13

ORAL ORDER:

¶14

Writ petition was disposed of directing the General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited/third respondent in the writ petition to consider the request of the petitioner in various representations with reference to the benefits claimed by him, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Alleging disobedience of the said direction, this Contempt Case is filed.

¶15

Along with the counter affidavit, copy of proceedings Ref No.SRP/PER/CF-732/5595 dated 06/08-November, 2017 is enclosed. In the said proceedings, the earlier issues concerning petitioner’s claim were narrated and petitioner was informed that he has to undergo medical examination before the Corporate Medical Board and unless Corporate Medical Board assesses his suitability, no further decision can be taken. A reading of the letter would also show that this request to assess the fitness by the Corporate Medical Board was communicated by proceedings dated 11.3.2016.

¶16

On the last occasion, though, the very same proceedings were produced, learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that there was inordinate delay and that delay is not explained. Having regard to said submission, respondent was directed to explain the reasons for delay.

¶17

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, various steps taken in the matter were explained leading to passing of the order. As can be seen from the order itself and the averments of counter affidavit, petitioner has to be assessed by the Medical Board on the claim of the

¶18

petitioner that he is suitable to continue in service and unless Medical Board assesses his suitability or otherwise, no consequential relief as sought for by the petitioner can be granted. It appears, so far petitioner has not been subjected to medical examination by the Medical Board.

¶19

Having regard to these facts, it cannot be said that respondent has violated the directions of this Court. Further, the explanation offered by the respondent in the counter for delay in taking the decision is valid and the same is accepted. Accordingly, contempt case is closed. However, it is open to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedies available to him in law. No costs.

¶20

__________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J

¶21

DATE: 15.12.2017 TVK

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶23

CONTEMPT CASE No. 1753 of 2017

¶24

Date :15.12.2017

Chotla Mallaiah, Mancherial Dist. v. Subhani, Mancherial Dist.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chotla Mallaiah, Mancherial Dist. v. Subhani, Mancherial Dist.

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

B.v.Krishna Murthy Vs Pulijala Ashaiah (Died) and 5 Others

Karri Chinna Rao, Visakhapatnam Dist. Vs Tippala Appala Narsamma and Another

Dammu Appa Rao Vs Gorli Gouresh

Kurapati Srinath, Siddipet Dist Vs Saadula , Kurapati Sree Poojitha, R.R.Dist

N.Ch.Ramalakshmi, Khammam Dist. Vs Vijaya Lakshmi Bai, Khammam

Neelam Sammaiah, Warangal City and Dist and Anr. Vs Kuncha Pavani, Warangal City and Dist