C.Madhuravani v. C.Hari Kiran
Case brief
What is this about?
Mus :An appeal against a Writ petitioner that the respondents complied with court order; no contempt proceeding needed; Case closed. No 156/2018
What did the court decide?
The Contempt Case is closed without taking action against the respondent.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
AND
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
Contempt Case No.156 of 2018
Order: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)
This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the order passed by this Court in W.A. No. 1024 of 2017 dated 9.8.2017. By the order passed in W.A. No.1024 of 2017, the respondents therein were directed to consider the earlier notice issued under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short “the GHMC Act”) as a show cause notice to which the appellants-writ petitioners were permitted to file a reply within two weeks from the date of the order, and the Tirupathi Municipal Corporation was directed, after considering the reply to the show cause notice, to take necessary action in accordance with law.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner, Tirupathi Municipal Corporation, it is stated that the writ petitioners had submitted a representation on 4.1.2018 in reply to the show cause notice issued earlier; and thereafter a final notice dated 17.1.2018 was issued directing the petitioners to remove the structures; and, since the time allowed in the notice expired on 4.2.2018, the subject structures were demolished in accordance with law on 3.3.2018.
It is clear that the respondents had treated the earlier Section 636 proceedings as a show cause notice, to which the writ petitioners had submitted their reply, and it is only thereafter that the final order was passed.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order was complied with and if no proceeding is required under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Allied Contempt Petitioners
- respondent
Commissioner, Tirupathi Municipal Corporation
Coram
Ramesh Ranganathan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- CC/156/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court