Contempt case alleging violation of a High Court order. Court observed that the respondent Collector did not interfere, noting improper charge. Case closed with a statement that the petitioner may file a fresh contempt case against the actual violator.
Contempt Case closed. Petitioner may file a fresh contempt case against the actual violator.
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 THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 708 oF 2021
Contempt Case filed Under Sections10 to12 of Contempt of CourtsAct to punish the respondent herein for willfully violating, disobeying the Orderof the High Courtdated. 18.02.2019passedinl.A.No.lot2019 inWritPetitionNo.3'162of2019
Between:
tt/andapally @ ManqalliAshok, S/o. Late ti/allaiah,aged about 47 years, Occ. Ba rber, -Ryo.H.N-o. 2-65, Naspur Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District. ...Petitioner
AND
Bharati Hollikeri, District collector,MancherialDistrict MancherialMancherial District The then Adilabad District.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PADALAPRAVIN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: GPFOR REVENUE (TG)
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK F",EDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.7O8 of 2 021
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is liled alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3162 of 2019.
By the said order dated 18.02.2019, this Cottrt haspassed the following order:
"ln the light of the mateiaL placed on recorC in proof of tl@ petitioner's possession ouer the subject land. there shall be a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to interfere utth his possession and enjoyment of the said land. euen if warranted, except in accordance with the due pr';cedure laid doun bg laut. "
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, has stated that the District Collector, Mancherial District, is made as a sole respondent in the contempt case. Bu:, as a matter of fact, the District Collector has neither inte rfr:red with the possession of the petitioner nor she has directed her subordinates to interfere with the possession of the petition:r. The learned Government Pleader has further stated that it is the Revenue lnspector, who has interfered with the possessiorL of the petitioner over the subject land and action is taken against the said Revenue Inspector.
Recording the above submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, the Contempt Case is closed. However, it is open to the petitioner to file a fresh Contempt Czrse against any other authority, who is a party to the writ petitiolt and violated the order of this Court dated 18.02.2019.
Pending miscellan
rhere sha, be no order;:::::"",s,
if anv, sha, stand c]osed
SD/. C.V,MALLI KARJUNA VARIVIA DEPUTY REGIS //TRUE COPYII R
To,
SECTI FFICER
HIGH COURT
DATED: 210912021
1 HE S14
o
a<^.
J {:
)r''
iJ 0I ocT2C?1
ij
+
ORDER
CC.No.708 of 2021
CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE
)
2 I
Tandapally @ Manqalli Ashok
Bharati Hollikeri
A. Abhishek Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
