A quick order closing a contempt case and two writ petitions. One petition regarding non-compliance was closed as the order was complied with. Another writ petition seeking demolition of an illegal structure was closed based on the respondent's counter-affidavit denying road encroachment.
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 SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CONTEMPT CASE No.2358 of 2017 and WRIT PETITION No. 332 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
Contempt Case No.2358 of 2017 is filed alleging non-compliance of the order, dated 22.02.2017, passed by this Court in WPMP No.369 of 2017 in W.P.No.332 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents submit that the order, dated 22.02.2017, has since been complied with and the petitioners were recognised as best journalists.
In those circumstances, it can be said that there is no contempt on the part of the respondents and nothing survives further in W.P.No.332 of 2017.
Hence, the contempt case and the writ petition are closed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
Dt:27.07.2018
kdl
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION No. 9565 OF 2016
O R D E R :
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
“……to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of respondent No.3 in not taking any action against the illegal constructions being made by encroaching the road to an extent of 3 ½ feet by respondent No.4 without obtaining any permission from the Gram Panchayat in
front of petitioner house bearing D.No.5-72, Orvakal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal and arbitrary and in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently direct respondent No.3 to demolish the illegal constructions being made by respondent No.4 forthwith…”
Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated as under:
“I submit that in reply to para 3 of the affidavit, it is true that the petitioner constructed house bearing No.572 at Orvakal Village long back and did not obtain any permission from the Gram Panchayat. I submit that it is true that respondent No.4 Mahaboob Basha also started construction of house adjacent to the house of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 obtained permission in the name of his son Molla Riyaz who is title holder from the Gram Panchayat for construction of his house. I submit that respondent No.4 has not encroached the road margin for construction of building, but he extended the sunshade up to 1 ½ feet on the road side. I submit that after issuance of notice to the said Molla Riyaz, the Gram Panchayat removed the said sunshade.”
In the light of the specific stand taken by respondent No.3
in the counter-affidavit, the writ petition is closed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed.
________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
Dt:20.06.2018 kdl
Petitioner
Respondent No.3
Respondent No.4
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
