Dismissed

V.Radha, v. Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S

Telangana HC1 Apr 2021CC/463/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

These contempt cases were filed by multiple petitioners alleging apprehension of violation by respondents before G.H.M.C. The Court held that no cause of action arises as the alleged violation is merely an apprehension and noted lack of service of notice or finalization of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Cases closed; liberty granted to petitioners to approach the Court in the event of future violation.

V.Radha, Vs Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 461,463,464 AND 468 OF 2021

¶7

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 461 OF 2021

¶8

Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the respondent herein for willfully deliberate violating the Order of the High Court dated 04-02-2019 in W.P. No. 1991of 2019.

¶9

Between:

¶10

N Rama Krishnam Raju, S/o. Late N.Suryanarayana Raju, Aged about 55 years. Occ: Un Employee H. No. 6-48. Garden Colon), Quthbullapur Village and Mandal at Hyderabad, Medchal District, ( Erstwhile Ranga Reddy -500 055

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S., The Commissioner, GHMC at Hyderabad.

¶14

Sri Ir/.Mangatayaru, The Deputy Commissioner Town Planning Section, Circle25. Chintal, Quthbullapur at Hyderabad.

¶15

RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. BANDA PRASADA RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI CHATLA MADHU

¶18

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 463OF 2021

¶19

¶20

V.Radha, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 50 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. H.Ng. 6-6211 , Garden Colony, Quthbullapur Village and Mandal, at Hyderabad, tvledchal District, (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy) -500 055.

¶21

...PETITIONER

¶22

AND

¶23

Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S, The Commissioner, GHwIC at Hyderabad

¶24

Sri M.Mangatayaru, The Deputy Commissioner, Town Planning Section, Circle-25, Chintal, Quthbullapur, at Hyderabad

¶25

.... RESPONDENTS

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. BANDA PRASADA RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: CHATLA MADHU

¶28

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 464^{OF 2021}

¶29

contempt case under sections^{10 to 12 of contemptof courts Act 197'1to} punish the respondent herein for willfully deliberate^{violatingthe order of the High} Court dated 04-02-2019 in W.P.^{No. 1969 of 2019.}

¶30

Between:

¶31

K.Satvanarayana, s/o. Narasimha^{Rao,Aged about 71 years, occ. Ex-serviceman} (Defiince), Fl/o. H.No. 6-66/2, Garden Colony, Quthbullapur Village and Mandal^at hyderabaU, tr/edchal District,^{(Erstwhlle Ranga Reddy) -500 055}

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S., The^{Commissioner, GHMC at Hyderabad.}

¶35

Sri M.Mangatayaru, The^{Deputy Commissioner'Town Planning Section,} Circle-25, 0friniat, Quthbullapur^{at Hyderabad}

¶36

... RESPONDENTS

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl.BANDA PRASADA RAO}

¶38

Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.1 & 2: SRICHATLAMADHU}

¶39

CONTE MPT CASE^N O:^{468 OF 2021}

¶40

contempt case under sections^{10 to 12 of contemptof courts Act 1971 to} punish the respondent herein for willfully deliberate^{violatingthe order of the High} Court dated 04-02-2019^{in W.P. No. 1934 of 2O19.}

¶41

Between:

¶42

Ch.Krupanandam, S/o. late^{Chindrapu Surana, Aged about7.1. years, Occ Priest} f Sociat'Service). R/o. H.No. 6-57^{and 58, Garden Colony, QuthbullapurVillage and} i,,4andal at Hyderabad, Medchal^{District, (Erstwhile Ranga Reddy) -500055.}

¶43

.....PETITIONER

¶44

AND

¶45

Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S., The Commissioner,^{GHMC at Hyderabad.}

¶46

Sri M.lr/angatayaru, The Deputy^{Commissioner, Town Planning Section,} Circle-25, Chintal, Quthbullapur, at Hyderabad.

¶47

..... RESPONDENTS

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BANDA^PRASADARAO

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1& 2: SRICHATLAMADHU}

¶50

Court made the following: COMMOM^ORDER

¶51

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶52

CONTEMPT CASE Nos.461.463.464 and 468 of 202I

¶53

CONI]!IO\ ORDER:

¶54

These Contempt Cases are filed alleging violation of common order dated 04.02.2019 passed by this Court in Writ PetitionNos.l933. 1934. 1969 and 1991 of20l9.

¶55

Paragraph No.3 of the affidavits filed in support of these Contempt Cases reads as under:

¶56

"I further submit that, after receipt of the certified copy of the order passed in wnt petition, I submitted representations dated 02.03.2021 and 06.03.2020 along with xerox copy of order, passed by this Hon'ble High Court and requested the respondents herein not to interfere with my peaceful possession without following due process of law. I further submit that through my neighbours, I recently came to know that the respondents are once again proposing to extend the existing road to 60 feet and they have also issued necessary llotices to the neighbouring land ou'ners and for the reasons best known to them, the respondents have not served any notice on me. I apprehend that the respondents without following the procedure and also the judgnent rendered bv this Hon'ble High Court. may forcefully demolish the part of house dwelling unit resulting in huge loss to me and also without finalizing the compensatiou amount to be paid to me."

¶57

A reading of the above mentioned paragraph discloses that a at this point of time, no cause of action arises for filing Contempt Case and it is only on apprehension that the respondents may violate the orders of this Court, these Contempt Cases have been filed.

¶58

¶59

C.C Nos.46L^{463, 464 and a68 of2021}

¶60

In those circumstances,^{these ContemptCasesare closed'}

¶61

however,^{giving liberty to the petitioners to takeappropriatesteps}

¶62

in the event of^{there beingany violation in futurecourse of time'}

¶63

s D /' c^{M AL u K0ij'#t} [+[xA

/irRUE coPY//

i--,-

SECTION^OFFICER

To, 1. Sri Lokesh^{Kumar D'S'' The Commissioner'GHIvlCat Hvderabad'} l, Eilmya: gX1Xr,Sl;^{1"ht'dilivdo'i'm rs'ron" r' rownP ra n ni ns Sectio n'} roPUCr

¶68

? * 3Ps^{3l Bfl:t3 ilTif, f*1:1i11"s3[}

¶69

roPUCr

¶70

Two^{CD CoPies} gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10412021

COMMON ORDER

ii.lE 5/A
3 APB 2021 z
'24 ,?
fr *
i,'i-.
.S t:..1.1 C

¶75

GC.Nos.461, 463, 464 AND 468 of 2021

¶76

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

¶77

h h

V.Radha, v. Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Radha, v. Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bolla Haritha Vs Bolla Yugendhar

The Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India Vs Bro. Y. John Subba Reddy

Shaik Moosa Nanded Dist Vs Sri Sunil Suryakant Narkawar, Nandedandanr

K.Satyanarayana Vs Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S.

P.Santhamma Vs Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S. and Another

N Rama Krishnam Raju Vs Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S.