Dismissed

Mohd.Allauddin v. G.v.Ramana Rao Garu

Telangana HC9 Feb 2018CC/269/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed by a petitioner alleging willful disobedience of an order directing the respondents to pass a speaking order within two months. The court held that since the respondents had passed the order, albeit delayed, the case was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case dismissed with liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies if aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2018.

Mohd.Allauddin Vs G.v.Ramana Rao Garu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

CVNR,J & GSP, J C.C.No.269 of 2018 Date: 09.02.2018

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

C.C.No.269 of 2018 in W.A.No.914 of 2017

¶7

Date: 09.02.2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd.Allauddin, S/o.Late Mohd. Azeemuddin, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Driver, TSRTC (Prior to bifurcation known as APSRTC), No.800033 of Gajwel Pregnapur Depot, Medak district R/o.H.No.6-36/2, Yerra Kunta Barkas, Hyderabad-05 (Gpp Depot comes … now under Siddipet District)

¶10

… Petitioner

¶11

And Sri G.V.Ramana Rao Garu, Vice Chairman & Managing Director, TSRTC, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & two others … Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Mohammed Ghouseuddin

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. N.Praveen Reddy for Mr.N.Vasudeva Reddy Standing Counsel for TSRTC

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

¶16

CVNR,J & GSP, J C.C.No.269 of 2018 Date: 09.02.2018

¶17

Order : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶18

This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 28.08.2017 in writ appeal No.914 of 2017. By the aforementioned order, this Court while allowing the writ appeal filed by T.S.R.T.C., following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3529 of 2017 and batch, permitted the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the respondent, with a direction to the latter to consider the representation and pass a detailed speaking order within two months and communicate the same to the petitioner. Alleging that the respondents have deliberately violated the said order by not passing any order as directed by this Court, the petitioner filed this contempt case.

¶19

At the hearing, learned Standing Counsel for respondents submitted that the Regional Manager, Medak Region, Sangareddy, who is the competent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner, has passed a detailed order dated 07.02.2018 and a copy of the same has been placed before us, after service of the same on the counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

Mr.Ghouseuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents who failed to pass an order within the stipulated time, have hurriedly passed the aforementioned order to escape contempt. Mr.N.Praveen Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, invited our attention to the contents of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the representation made by the petitioner and submitted that as the petitioner was critical of the approach of this Court in allowing the writ appeal, the respondents were hesitating to take a decision and that finally, on the legal advice, they have passed the order on 07.02.2018.

¶21

A perusal of the contents of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the representation shows that the grievance of the petitioner against this

¶22

¶23

CVNR,J & GSP, J C.C.No.269 of 2018 Date: 09.02.2018

¶24

Court in allowing W.A.No.914 of 2017, has been expressed by the petitioner, obviously without realizing the fact that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order in the writ appeal, the appropriate remedy for him was to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. Having accepted the order of this Court, the petitioner cannot be expected to be critical about the order passed by this Court in his representation to the Corporation. Be that as it may, we do not intend to take unsatisfactory conduct of the petitioner seriously, as obviously, he was advised by his lawyer to draft such a representation. In any event, as the respondents have already passed an order, albeit after the expiry of the time stipulated by this Court, and in the facts and circumstances of this case, the contempt case is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedies, if he is aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2018.

¶25

_
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

(Gudiseva Shyam Prasad, J)

¶26

Date: 9^th February, 2018 msb

Mohd.Allauddin v. G.v.Ramana Rao Garu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Allauddin v. G.v.Ramana Rao Garu

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

Chiluveru Suresh, Manchiryal Dist Vs Aitha Ramaiah, Khaghaznagar and 2 Others

Manam Satyanarayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P Saritha, Secbad Vs the State of Telangana and Anr.

D. Pallavi Vs D.Bhaskar Rao

Kyama Eswaraiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Bal Reddy and Another Vs B Balakishan Rao and 12 Others