Court dismissed a contempt petition alleging disobedience of a High Court order regarding unauthorized construction. The court held that the first respondent had complied with the original order by issuing notices in accordance with the law, finding no necessity for further orders.
Contempt case closed with no order as to costs.
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 STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE C.V.BHASKARREDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No: 1820 OF2023
Contempt case filed Section 10 lo 12 ofContempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the respondents herein forwillfully and disobeying/ deliberately/violating the orders of theHigh Court passed in W.P. No.12869 of 2023 dated 28.04.2023passedby his Lordship Sri Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddyin the interest of justice.
BETWEEN:
Smt. Yerram @ Arram Laxmi, Wo.Shankaraiah.aged 60 years, Occ. House wi-fe, Ryo. H No.25-249, ChennurGate Area, Ashok
...PETITIONER
AND
...CONTEM NORS/RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty Gounsel for the RespondentNo.1: Sri B Jagan MadhavaRao Counsel for the RespondentNo.2: Sri P Lakshma Reddy
The Court made the following:ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CO MPT CASE No.1.820 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Contempr Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order, dated,28.04.2023 passed by this Court in w.p.No.12g69 ot 2023.
2' By order dated.28.04.2023, passed in w.p.No.128 69 of 2023, this Court, directed respondent No.1 herein not to allow any illegal or unauthorized constructions carried out by respondent No.2 herein, conhary to the sanctioned plan.
2
l,ide ROC No.G1l1135/23, dated 08.09.2023 directing to srop the work and to show cause as to why the unauthorized construction shall not be removed. Questioning the said notice, respondent No.2 filed W.P.No.30648 of 2023 on the file of this Court and this Court on 03.11.2023 disposed of the same relegating the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 252 of the Telangana Municipalities Act,2079 before the Regional Director.
5 Since respondent No.1 has complied with the orders, dated 03.71.2023 in W.P.No.12869 of 2022 by issuing notices as well as passing speaking orders to respondent No.2, no further orders are necessary to be passed in this contempt case.
I I
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicatioru, if any,
shall stand closed.
SD/. CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
sEcTtoN oFFtcER
lntcr^
HIGH COURT
CVBR, J
DATED: 1111212023
ORDER
CC.No.1820 ot 2023
.-a" .+ $l :.'__- :' _ -
/''.-
l;'-l
tO
)
, *
U
ts\r-''
CLOSING THE CONTEMPT GASE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt case should be disposed of given the compliance with the original order by issuance of notices.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Yerram @ Arram Laxmi
Sri Alle Maruthi Prasad
Sheryala Ramabrammam
Sri Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
