The High Court refused to implead a second respondent because representation had already been decided by an earlier order. The court closed the contempt case and granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition.
Liberty granted to file a fresh writ petition if aggrieved.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OFDECEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRASHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2545 OF 2016
(Contempt Case U/s. 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated 1510612015 in WP No.3695012014)
Between:
Al-Hashmi Wakf Properties Protection Cell
...PETITIONER
AND
B. Janardhan Reddy, Commissioner, G.H.M.C., Tank Bund, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Between:
Al-Hashmi .wakf Properties Prot-ection cell, A registered society represented by its President Mohd. Layeeq Khan s/o. lVrohd. Kareehulla Khan, A.qe:'40 vears. H.No. B-1-253134, Dwaraka nagar Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad.
AND
...PET|T|ONERyPETIT|ONER
Petition under Order 'l Rule 10 R/w. 151 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to implead the respondent no.2 in this contempt case, in cc.No. 2545t2016.
For the Petitioner : SRI K.VENUMADHAV, Advocate
For the Respondent : SRt pASHAM KRTSHNA REDDy, SC FOR GHMC,
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLI THE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRASIIARMA AND
TH : HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
(:o FT CASE No.2545 of2O16
ORDER:(Perthe , 'on'blethe Chief JusticeSatish Chqndra Sharmq)
A count 3r a-ffidavithas been Iiled in the matter stating that t rerepresentationhas already been decided by an order dlted05.09.2018,that too after granting an opportunity ohearing to the petitioner'
In the li iht ofthe aforesaid,no further ordersare required to t epassed in the present contemptcase' However, a1i rerty is grantedto the petitionerto file a fresh writpel lion in case the petitioneris stili aggrieved in the matter.
The con:emptcase isaccordinglyclosed' The miscellaneousapplications pending inthis contempt
case, if anY,sl .a11 also stand closed
Sd/.CH,VENKATESWARULU DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,/^| / /TRUE COPY' L.ltt SECTiON OFFICER
To
1 B.JanardhanReddl Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Tank Bund, HYderarad.
2 o?i,j'c-C'id'siix.Verumaonav, Advocate[oPUC]. - - 3 5.nE dd i; 5;ij";r im xrisrrni Reddv' Advocate[oPUC] 4 Two CD CoPies 5 One SpareCoPY kKi.
HIGH COURT
DATED:0311212021
ORDER
(
oL) 2 7 DEC 202t
,.k
_..-:*-''
CC.No.2545 of2016
CLOSINGTHE CC.
Nz
i r,rv
UA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to implead a second respondent who was already represented by an earlier order in the contempt proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Al-Hashmi Wakf Properties Protection Cell
B. Janardhan Reddy
Satish Chandra Sharma
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
