Dismissed

Golla Ramesh Babu v. Sri Y Ali Akbar Basha

Telangana HC8 Dec 2017CC/2534/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed the Contempt Case alleging a violation of an order directed the official respondents to consider a specific Government Order with expedition. The Court held the impugned order was passed within the stipulated time limit and held matters regarding the specific decision fell outside contempt jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Case is dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending also stand dismissed; no order as to costs.

Golla Ramesh Babu Vs Sri Y Ali Akbar Basha — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶4

Contempt Case No. 2534 of 2017

¶5

Order: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶6

The order, violation of which is alleged in this Contempt Case, was passed in W.P. No. 27661 of 2017 dated 21.8.2017 whereby the official respondents were directed to consider and take a decision, in terms of GO Ms. No. 138 dated 8.8.2017, with utmost expedition and, in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶7

The respondents passed a reasoned order on 30.10.2017, directing that the petitioner would retire from service with effect from 31.10.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. This order dated 30.10.2017 is said to be in violation of the order passed by us in W.P. No. 27661 of 2017 dated 21.8.2017.

¶8

As noted hereinabove, the order passed by us only required the respondents to consider, and take a decision in terms of GO Ms. No. 138 dated 8.8.2017 with utmost expedition; and, in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The order dated 30.10.2017 was passed well within the three months period stipulated in our order dated 21.8.2017.

¶9

While Sri I. Laxmikanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the decision taken by the respondents is not in terms of GO Ms. No.138 dated 8.8.2017, these are all matters which can only be agitated in independent legal proceedings, and not in proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. This Court would exercise its jurisdiction, under the Contempt of Courts Act, only if the order of this Court has been wilfully and deliberately violated. As the

¶10

¶11

respondents have passed an order on 30.10.2017, it cannot be said that the order of this Court has been violated, much less wilfully and deliberately.

¶12

We see no reason, therefore, to proceed against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶13

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶14

_________________ (J. UMA DEVI, J) 8^th December, 2017

¶15

pnb

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶18

AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶20

Contempt Case No. 2534 of 2017

¶21

Date: 8.12.2017

¶22

pnb

¶23

Golla Ramesh Babu v. Sri Y Ali Akbar Basha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golla Ramesh Babu v. Sri Y Ali Akbar Basha

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

State of Telangana, Vs Md. Hayath Uddin

Chanda Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Akula Purushotham Vs The State of Telangana

Sbpm Junior College (Aided), Spsr Nellore Dist. and 2 Others Vs Adityanathdas, I.a.S, Guntur Dist. and 2 Others

T.Narayana Rao, Hyd and 2 Others Vs Ajay Misra, I.a.S., Hyd and 3 Others

The Annavarappadu Hut Peoples Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh