Dismissed

Mekala Mallamma v. Sri Sandeep Kumar Sultania Garu

Telangana HC13 Aug 2021CC/759/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case filed under the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for violating orders, the court observed that the ordered action had been complied with and the petitioner's underlying case was rejected. The contempt case was closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed with liberty to challenge the rejection order.

Mekala Mallamma Vs Sri Sandeep Kumar… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

CONTEMPT CASEN O:759 OF 2021

¶6

contempt case filed Under Sections 10 to 12 of contempt of courts Act to punish the respondent herein for willfully violating, disobeying the order of the High Court dated. 24.06.2019 passed in W.p.No.9999 of 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

lvekala lt/allamma, D/o. Pochalu, aged 55 years, consolidated pav emolovee working on full time .basis, Primary^{-School.'Rayadandi,} namJgundim lrri;;a;|, Kanmnagar Distrlgt, working on deputation as Attender in the^-office of lvandai Praja Parishad Office, Ramagundan-i, Karimnagar District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Sri Sandeep Kumar S ultania Garu, lAS, Principal Secretary, panchavat Rai & Rural Employment, Government of Telangana, Telahgana S6cretarlat, Hyderabad.

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶14

Petition under Section^'1 51 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to condone the delay of^'1 32 days in representing the above cc (sR) No. 3992 of 2020.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s CH. GANESH

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶17

The Court made the follorying: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMARSHA'/ILI}

¶19

CONTEM PT CASE No.759^{ot 2021}

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

When the motter is token up for heoring,^leorned Government Pleoder oppeoring for^{the respondenthod informed} the Court thot the order^possed by this Courl^{hos beencomplied} with ond the cose of the^petitioner wos rejected^{vide proceedings} doted 18.01 .2019.

¶22

Since the order^possed by this Court^{hos been complied with,} ihe Contempt Cose is closed. However, the^{petllioreris given} liberly to chollenge the rejection order ln occordonce'with^{low. No} costs.

¶23

Pending miscelloneous^petitions, if ony, sholl slonc closed.

¶24

SDi. M. RAMANA^KRISHNA OEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶25

//TRUE COPY'

¶26

SECTION O ICER

¶27

To, 1. Sri. Sandeep Kumar^{SultaniaGaru' IAS' PrincipalSecretar/'Panchayat Raj and} nuratEmployment,GovernmentofTelangana,TelanganaSecretariat' Hyderabad.

¶28

One CC to M/s.^{CH. Ganesh, Advocate} IOPUC]

¶29

f*o CCs to^{Gp for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development(TG), High Court for} the State of Telangana,^{at Hyderabad} [OUT]

¶30

Two CD CoPies

neS^pare Copy MMK TP

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1310812021

ORDER

CC.No.759 of 2021

g s1'A16
$>
ooJ 1 5 $EP20?1

Dri a

¶37

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

¶38

.O
aqE
1

Mekala Mallamma v. Sri Sandeep Kumar Sultania Garu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekala Mallamma v. Sri Sandeep Kumar Sultania Garu

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

V. Vishnu Murthy, Mahabubnagar District. Vs the District Collector ( Cooperation), and 4 Others

Dr.v.Ramesh, Hyderabad. Vs the Govt.of Ap by Secy., Education Dept.Hyd.and 2 Others

B.Janardhan, Nalgonda Dist. Vs Secy. Higher Edn. Hyd and 2 Others

K.Raju Vs Sri Sunil Sharma, I.A.S.

K.Bikshapathi Vs Sri Sunil Sharma. IAS

Sunkari Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 11 others