Batthula Padma v. Mr. Ranjeev R. Acharya and 4 others
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment addresses a contempt filed for non-implementation of an interim order admitting a petitioner to an educational course. The court, persuaded by the Government Pleader that the petitioner was already admitted, closed the contempt case without severe punishment but imposed nominal costs.
What did the court decide?
Contempt case closed; Rs.500/- imposed as costs to be deposited by the respondent within two weeks.
What the court decided
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
CONTEMPT CASE No.2413 OF 2018
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)
Heard Mr. Peeta Raman and Smt. C.Vani Reddy for the parties.
On 17.08.2018, this Court ordered I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.29205 of 2018. The operative portion of the order read thus:
“There will be an interim order directing that the respondents will admit the petitioner to pursue D.EI.Ed., Course basing upon her rank secured in DEECET – 2018 entrance examination coupled with rank and pass provisionally and subject to further orders.
The respondents will file counter affidavit, if the writ petition is contested, within four weeks”.
The 2nd respondent did not implement the order resulting in
filing the present contempt case. The 2nd respondent by filing the counter affidavit tries to justify the action for not complying with the order dated 17.08.2018. The Government Pleader, having regard to the subsequent developments viz., that the petitioner is already admitted, persuaded us not to take serious view of the action of 2nd respondent or the stand taken in the counter affidavit. In the case on hand, but for the persuasion submissions of the Government Pleader, we may not have closed the contempt case, but would have heard and passed the orders as may be correct and proper, after taking note of the objections, including the conduct of 2nd respondent.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt proceedings should be concluded given the subsequent fulfillment of the interim order by the respondent.
Whether costs should be imposed on the respondent for the delay in complying with the court order.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
2nd Respondent
Coram
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- CC/2413/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Greenko Energies Private Limited, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
N.Purushottam Reddy Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and 2 Others
The Salaried Employees Vs the Dy. Regist., Coop., Societies, E.G.Dist., and 46 Others
Vairgade Vinod, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary