Bashaboina Kaushik Kumar Vs Sri P.Kiran Kumar

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR-T+IE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDf{ESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL,., TWo rHousAND AND rwerviv ir_r-nee

¶4

rHE HoNouR^"..,#Tt:.,i:L A.ABHT.HEK REDD'

¶5

coNTEMPT CASE NO: 1622 0F 2021

¶6

contempt case under section 10 ro 12 0f contempt of courts Act to punish the Respondent herein for wirfury, viorating the order of the High court dated 27logl2121 passed in Wp No.232i9t2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Hi:,Hfli?ssft,j;:"^Hff^{iiiitl3rsi.x:g:Ji j,',vi#tt',?f,s,'",,:3,.il:;!.;}

¶9

,..PETITIONER/ PETITIONER AND

¶10

Sri P.Kiran Kumar, Tahsild ar Kazipet Mandal, Hanamkonda District.

¶11

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT NO.4

¶12

For the Petitioner: SRI p.MEHAR SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate

¶13

For the Respondent : SRI BOyA RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate

¶14

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶15

.t.I I I' I ION' I}I,Ii SRI^{.I TJS'I'ICI]A. AI}I I ISII T]K RT] DI)Y}

¶16

CON'I'EMPT CASE No.l622^{of 202t}

¶17

ORDI]R:

¶18

I'his^(-'ontcmpt Casc is lllcd^{allcgirrgvrilllil}

¶19

disobcdicncc to thc order^{datcd 27.09.202 Ipasscdb1' this} Court in Writ Pctition^{No.23259ol 2021}

¶20

Ily the said order dated 27.09.202^I ,^{this Courtlras} disposccl of Writ Petition No.23259 of^{2021 and thc cotrclusivc}

¶21

portion of the said ordcr rcads as lollows:

¶22

"tlavilrg regard to thc lacts and circulnstanccs^ol-tltccasc. rvithoLrt going into thc tncrits or dcrnerits of^{thccasc- lhc} rvrit petition is disposcd ol dircctirrg thc rcsllorrdcrrl \o^l. to collduct de not'o enquiq'^{plrrsuitnlto the ordersrrl tltc} rcspondent No.3, dated 16.05.2020 and^{pass rlccessar</sup> orders striclly on merits. as^{expcditiouslyas possible.} prclerably, rvithin a period of lout nronths^{ll-onr tlrc datcol'} lcccipt ola copy of this ordcr. lt is^{needlcssto rncrrtion that} tlrc rcspondctrt No.4, bclorc condLrctirtg lhc tlc^trttr.tt cnquiry. shall pul all thc^{intelestcdpartics ott rroticc. A} cop;- ol thc orders passcd. if any. shall^{bc courttr u tr icatcd ttr} thc pan ics."}

¶23

[ .carncd counsel lor the rcspondcnt, on instructions. has

¶24

statcd that pursuant to thc rcpcaling ol'thc Andlrra f)radcsh Riglrts in Land and Pattadar pass Books Act, l9l l, by rhc

¶25

\IIi J C C \o lo22 ol )o2 t

¶26

2

¶27

'1'clangana Rights in l-and and l)attaclar l)ass IJooks Act, 2020,

¶28

and issuance of the Circular b1, thc Chicl' ('ornrnissioncr of I-and Administration, datcd 07.09.2020 r,idc CCl,As I{cf.No.Assn.l(l)/46312020, rhe rcspondcnr l'ahsildar does not have any power to pass any order and it is only the District Collector, who is having thc powcr to pass ordcrs.

¶29

Flaving regard to thc abovc madc submissions, the respondent - Tahsildar is dircctcd 1o subntit a reporl" to the District Collector conccrncd within a pcriocl of- tu,o wccks lrom the date of reccipt of a cclpy ol- this ordcr. On receipt of such report, the District Collcctor conccrncd shall take necessary action in accordancc with law, r,n,ithin a period of l.wo weeks thcreafter.

¶30

This Contempt Case is accordingll' disposed ol-.

¶31

Miscellaneous applications, il- any pcnding, shall stand

¶32

closed.

¶33

Sd/-K.SAILESHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/i qb SECTION^OFFICER

¶34

To

¶35

Sri P.Kiran^{Kumar, Tahsildar KazipetMandal' Hanamkonda District'} i. iii" oiiirlct^{Cottector, Hanamkonda District'} 5. d;Ec 6'sri^{F.rraen'ar s,inivasa Rao' Advocate[pPU^Q)} ;. il; cc i;^{s; eoianavinderReddv, Advocate[oPUCl} 5. Two CD^CoPies K :{r+"'-

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/04/2023

ORDER

CC.No.1622 of 2021

_--1-
rr.ii, ::ruii)."-''li '1.
(
2 JUN 2[8
,i; 1

¶41

DISPOSING THE CC.

¶42

@, \u{
a

Bashaboina Kaushik Kumar v. Sri P.Kiran Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bashaboina Kaushik Kumar v. Sri P.Kiran Kumar

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

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hanamkonda, Warangal District Vs the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Warangal and Another

Smt.M.Sujata and Another Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another

Amara Srinivasa Rao Vs Kodela Chinna Rajaiah

Smt.Ch.Shobha Rani Vs Mettu Sarala

K. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, Vs Chindam Rajamallu

T.Malla Reddy Vs The Government of Ap.