Disposed

Tarimela Vijay Kumar v. M. Raghunandan Rao

Telangana HC14 Mar 2022CC/28/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case regarding disobedience of an earlier order, the Court accepted the Government Pleader's submission that orders were passed complying with the earlier directive. Upon counsel's request, the Court closed the contempt case and granted liberty to challenge the subsequent Government order.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case closed with liberty to petitioners to challenge the order dated 05.03.2022.

Tarimela Vijay Kumar Vs M. Raghunandan Rao — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

I I

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAO

¶4

MONDAY, THE^{FOURTEENTHDAYOF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRt JUSTICEA.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶7

coN TEMPT^{CASENO:28 0F}

¶8

¶9

¶10

(Contempt Case^{U/s. 'lO to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct' to punishthe} RespondentshereinforwilfuldisobedienceoftheordersoftheHigra^...+rlalorl 114t2O21^{in WP No.787212021)}

Berween

1 Tarimela^{Viiay Kumars/o T' BaliReddy'} ased about^{6i years, occ: CharteredAccountant'} R"/o Plot No.154A,^MLAColonY, Road No.12,^{Baniara Hills, Hyderabad'} Tetangana-500034.

¶15

Z T. Srinivasulu^{s/o T. Narsimhulu'} ased about⁷⁰ Years,^occ:Retired' (

¶16

R"/o Plot No.3134,^MLAColonY, (

¶17

Road No.12,^{Banjara Hills, Hyderabad'} Telangana-500034.

¶18

3 K. Pratima^{ReddY w/o K' Anil Kumar'} aged about⁴⁶ Years,^{occ: Household'} R7o Plot No.29A,^MLAColonY, Road No.12,^{Banlara Hills, Hyderabad'} Telangana-500034'

¶19

4 C. Sarala Raiyalakshmi^{w/o B' lanardhan'} aged about⁶⁵ Years,^{occ: Retired'} R/o Plot No.54C,^MLAColonY, Road No.1^{2, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad'} Telangana-500034.

/"--\l!t/ 5 PaduruKaruna^{w/o P' RamSunder Reddy'} ,l"J ru"",^{65 Years'occ: Business'} R"/o Plot^{No.310A' MLA CotonY'} i/ol;'n;';,,e'niara^{Hlls' HYderabad'} 'lelangana-500034' ...peti$oners/Petitioners ADd 1. M. Raghunandan^Rao' PrinciPal^Secretary' b"r".irn""t^{of AgricultureandCo-operation'} or rilangana'^BRKRBhavan' ;;;;;;'t Tank Bund,^HYderabad' 2. M. Veerabrahmaiah' Commissioner^{& Registrarof Co-Operative Societies'} i"t".tt-"* "r Telangana' I frt lUiai""^{Grounds' Hyderabad'} t: ....Respondenls/Respondents For the Petitioners^{: SRI P'S'RAJASEKHAR'Advocate} For the Res,pondents^{: GP FORCOOPERATION}

¶25

¶26

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶27

¶28

TIIE I{ON'I}t,E SRI JUSTICE A. ABT{ISHEK REDDY CON'l'EN'lPT CASE No.28 of 2022

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Complaining wiltut disobedience on the part of the respondents in ln implementing the order of this Court, dated 01.04.2021, passed W.P.No.7872 of 2021, the^{petitioners filed the present} Contempt^Case.

¶31

The leamed^(iovernment Pleader^has stated^{that pursuantto the} order of this Courl dated 01.04.2021,^{the APC & Secretary to the} Govemment has^passed orders^{on 05.03.2022,and therefore,nothing}

¶32

remains for adjudication in^{the presentContemptCase.}

¶33

Leamed counsel tbr the^{petitioners seekspermissionof this Court to} challenge the order dated^05.03.2022.

¶34

In view of the above rnade^{submissions, the ContemptCaseis closed} granting liberty to the petitioners^{to challengethe order date'd05.03.2022'}

¶35

Miscellarreous applications,^{if any pending, shallstand closed. There}

¶36

shall be no orcier^as to^costs.

¶37

Sd/-A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

OFFICER

To 1. M. Raghunandan^{Rao' Principal Secretary'-Department} -r^-.^{n^^6+montof nf Agriculture Anricrrlture}^{and C} c^o- operation,^{cout'n,.nJnioi' i";T;d"*'bdxRdnavan' Tank Bund'}

¶42

, il,lt""J3L1ttrhmaiah,^{commissioner and Registrar of co-operative socielies'} Government^{or reruni'Jna'L^nigition} Qr!ii$i;Hvderabad'

¶43

3 il; il; CC i; i;^{Sri P S Ra'iasernar' Advocaie P S Ra'iasernar' Advocaie Ra'iasernar' AdvocaietqfuY'} 4. Two CCs Two CCs CCs^{to GP for Cdoperation' High Court for GP for Cdoperation' High Court for for Cdoperation' High Court for for tie State}

¶44

3 il; il; CC i; i;^{Sri P S Ra'iasernar' Advocaie P S Ra'iasernar' Advocaie Ra'iasernar' AdvocaietqfuY'} 4. Two CCs Two CCs CCs^{to GP for Cdoperation' High Court for GP for Cdoperation' High Court for for Cdoperation' High Court for for tie Stateof Telanganaat} Hvderabad [OUTI

¶45

s. Trfuo CD^CoPies

¶46

One SPare^CoPY

d\I

HIGH COURT

DATE D : 1 410312022

,+ tiC ST4
J
21 SEP 2022

ORDER

CC.No.ll8 o12022

GC is c;losed.

B
X*\K

Tarimela Vijay Kumar v. M. Raghunandan Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarimela Vijay Kumar v. M. Raghunandan Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fahmeeda Begum Vs The State of Telangana 3 others

V. Satyavardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Somisetty Shankaraiah Vs Smt.Bharati Hollikeri, IAS

M/s. Madhukunj Flat Occupants Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana, And 5 Others

Jangam Amulya Vs The State of Telangana

Appula Pentamma Vs State of Telangana