Dismissed

Mittapally Govardhan v. Sri G. Srinivasa Rao

Telangana HC27 Aug 2021CC/486/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition filed for wilful disobedience, the court held that the matter was compliant as the petitioners' cases had been considered and rejected by a prior order. The contempt proceedings were closed, but liberty was granted to challenge the rejection order. No single subject fit the specific scheme options.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty granted to challenge rejection order via regular appeal.

Mittapally Govardhan Vs Sri G. Srinivasa Rao — Telangana HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAUGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 486 OF 2021

¶6

Contempt filed under Sections 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 punish them for lhe utter wiltfully disobedience and disregard shown to the orders of thls Honble Court daled 28.12.2020 in W.P.No.15441 ol 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

l,4ittapally Govardhan, S/o. Janardhan, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Lingala Regonda N,4andal, J.S. Bhupalapally, Warangal.

¶9

A, Ashok Kumar, S/o. Sammaiah, Aged about 44^years, R/o. Repaka^Village, Regonda Mandal, J.S. Bhupalapally, Warangal.

¶10

P. Ramu, S/o. Ramanaiah, Aged about 41^years, Rl/o. Repaka Village, Regonda lV'landal, J.S. Bhupalapally, Warangal.

¶11

P. Suman Kumar, S/o. Allaiah, Aged about 43^years, Fl/o. Repaka Village, Regonda Mandal, J.S. Bhupalapally, Warangal.

¶12

M. Surender, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 44^years, Rl/o. CSI^{Colony, Parkal} Mandal, Warangal.

¶13

T. Raju, S/o. Shankaraiah, Aged about 44^years, R/o. Challapally^PostParkal Mandal, Warangal.

¶14

M. tt/uralidhar, S/o. Raja Pochaiah, Aged about 45^{years, Fl/o. ParkalParkal} Mandal, Warangal.

¶15

Boddula Vamana Swamy, S/o. Mallesham, Aged about 40^{years, Rl/o. Kotanch} Village, Regonda Mandal, Warangal.

¶16

M. Vasudeva Reddy, S/o Sambashiva Reddy, Aged about 41^years, Rio Cherlapally Village, Parkal Mandal, Warangal.

¶17

'10.Aldi Suresh, S/o. Saraiah, Aged about 44 years, R/o. Parkal Village Parkal lr,4andal, Warangal.

¶18

11.Aldi Ramesh Babu, S/o. Saraiah, Aged about 51^years, R/o. Parkal Village, Parkal ti/andal, Warangal.

¶19

.....PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

¶20

AND

¶21

Sri G. Srinivasa Rao, Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶22

Shri S. A. M. Raizvi, Principal Secretary to Government, Telangana State, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Departrnent, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶23

3 Smt. K. Lalitha Devi, District Medical and Health Officer, Warangal, Warangal District

¶24

Sri Rajeev Gandhi Hanumanthu, District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶25

.,...CONTEMNORS/RESPONDENT NO¹ TO 4

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. J SUDHEER

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents: NO. 1 TO 4 G.P.FOR SERVICE ll

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

ItON'BLii.^{SRI JUS'llCE ABHINAND KUMAR SllAVlLl}

¶30

C,C. No.48^{6of t02l}

¶31

OBDEN:

¶32

When^{the matter is taken up for hearing' leameJGovernment} Pieader^{for Services appearingfor the respondents coniendedthat the} cases of^the Petitioners^{was considered in Pursuanceof the orders} passed^{bY this Court and it wasrejected videProceedings} dated li.6.l0l^{I .}

¶33

l.earned^{counsel fbr the petitionerscontendedthatre.jection ol'} the petitioners'cases^{itself is contrary to law and the respondentsare} lirrblc^{lbr action Llnder the Contemptot'Cotrrts Act'}

¶34

This Court,^{ir.r view of the rival submissions madeby learrred} counsel^{tbr both the parlies'is of the considered vierv that the cases of} the petitioners^{were considered in pursuanceof th': orderpassed by} this court^{and as such, the orderpassed by this lourt is complied} with. The^{ContemptCase is accordingly closed'llowever'libertyis} given to the^{petitionersto challengethe rejectionc'rder in accordance}

¶35

u'ith law

¶36

¶37

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶38

To,

¶39

1 sri of relangana' G. Srinivasa^{Hyderaoao Rao'.Director of Public Health and Family Welfare'Government} r^ Gnv,rrnment, Gnv,rrnment,^{Telangana statestate}

¶40

r^ Gnv,rrnment, Gnv,rrnment,^{Telangana statestate}

¶41

2 33x;Ju ;^{i'' ir} v*'^{5' o} ,^{g, S? ?l.il t':'8il'"' B$:?i*} "T'

¶42

i:';i,r: ^,fl

¶43

3 Smt.^{K. LalithaDevi'District Medicaland HealthC)fficer' Warangal'Warangal} 4 ::[i,"""^{Gandhi Hanumanthu' District collector' v/arangal'waransalDistrict}

¶44

E One^{CC to Sri J Sudheer' Advocate IOPUCI}

¶45

(

¶46

o Two CC's to the G.p. for G.p.for Service ll Staie of Telangana at 7. Hyderabad. [OUT] B. Two CD Copies n.^ Oj" Spare Copy VM tp {'

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^271081202'l

ORDER

CC.No.486 of 2021

(ire STAT E Qr
(i.
7
it
(.7
.l'
if,oo 1[ stPzstl
r,t'
),.
* ii P3 i,.1C_

¶52

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT^CASE

¶53

l)
Dl/
i I

Mittapally Govardhan v. Sri G. Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mittapally Govardhan v. Sri G. Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Siva Sai Agencies Vs The Food Corporation of India and Another

Bokka Sree Rama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

M/ s Lakshmi Narasimha Warehousing Partnership Vs Union of India

M.Venkata Ranga Prasad, Vs The State of Telangana

Nenavath Devender Vs The State of Telangana

K.Shalini Vs State of Telangana