H. Anantha Padmanabha, v. Mr. Ronald Ross, IAS
Case brief
What is this about?
Hon'ble Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, in Contempt Case No.615 of 2017, refused to punish the respondent for the delay in implementing an order despite some lapse. The court closed the contempt case and directed the closure of any pending miscellaneous petitions. No costs were awarded.
What did the court decide?
Contempt Case closed; miscellaneous petitions to stand closed; no costs awarded.
What the court decided
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.615 of 2017
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondent.
It is stated by both sides that the respondent had considered petitioner’s representations dt.30-04-2015 and 29-11-2016 and disposed them of on 07-04-2017.
Though there is some delay in implementing the said order, I am not inclined to punish the respondent for contempt.
The Contempt Case is accordingly closed. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date: 09-06-2017 Vsv
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to punish the respondent for contempt of court.
Whether to allow the miscellaneous petitions pending in the contempt case.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Respondent
Coram
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · June
- Registered
- Case no.
- CC/615/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court