Dismissed

Dr. M.A. Saiff Ali v. Dr. Divvela Mohan Das

Telangana HC1 Dec 2023CC/2074/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt case filed against a medical college dean for alleged violation of a High Court order. The petitioner complained that the dean denied permission to rejoin classes contrary to a previous interlocutory order. A reply rejoinder suggested the petitioner misinterpreted the order, which this Court accepted.

What did the court decide?

The present Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dr. M.A. Saiff Ali Vs Dr. Divvela Mohan Das — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2074 O F 2023

¶7

Contempt Case under Section 10 to 12 ot the Contempt of Court Act to punish the respondent herein for willfully violating the Order of the High Court dated 11.09.2023 passed in W P.No.1566g OF 2023.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr. M.A.Saiff Ali S/o0 Sd. Wajid Asgar Rasheed

¶10

...PetitionerMrit Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

Dr. Diwela Mohan Das S/o not known to the Petitioner Occ: Princioal and Additional DME, Kakatiya Medical college, Nizampura, Rangampet Skeet, W'arangal, Telangana 506 007.

¶13

RespondenUContemnor

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner. Srikanth Chintala, Advocate

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent : GP for Medical and Health

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶18

CONT EMPT CASE No.2074 OF 2023

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

Heard Mr. C, Srikanth, learned counset for the petitioner and also heard learned counsel for the sole respond ent.

¶21

The present Contempt Case is filed complaining violation of the orders of this Court dated 11.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.15669 of 2023. The operative portion oF the said order passed in W.p.No.15669 of 2023, dated tt.Og.2023 reads as u nder:

¶22

"[t is however open to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter if the respondents intend -^{to do so duly following the principles of} natural justice by providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and fottowing the procedural guidelines prescribed in National Medical Commission (prevention and prohibitaon of Ragging in Medacal Colleges/Institutions) Regu_lations, 2O21, the governing Act as on date and..in particular Regulation 23.- However, there shall be no order as to costs.,,

¶23

The learned counsel for respondent/Contem nor filed counter affidavit on behalf of sole-respondent and in particular paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the said counter affidavit reads as under:

¶24

¶25

l ll ll

¶26

cc 2or4 Xy%EF^201! ' 5t,, l. 2\

¶27

In reply to para 6, It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner as approached the principal along with the Judgement copy in W.P No.15669 of 2023 and the Principal obeying the Hon'ble Court orders, has informed the petitioner that the Court has instructed to proceed afresh in the matter duly following the Principles of natural^justice by providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The same was informed to the^petitioner to await and to attend the further^proceedings of^Anti ragging committee in due course of time.^{But with} malafide intension to avoid the enquiry^the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble High court and filed this Contempt^petition with^baseless allegations.

¶28

In reply to^para 7, It is respectfully^submitted that, the^principal in compliance of the^{orders of} Hon'ble High court in W.P No 15669 of^2023has permitted and admitted Dr.M.A Saif Ali to attend classes and Dr M.A Saif Ali is attending^classes from 4.10.2023 and the copy of^{Bio metric} attendance of Dr M.A Saif Ali^{is submittedto} Hon'ble High Court. Further it is^respectfully submitted that there is no^{wilful visionor} disobedience of the order^{passed by the Hon'ble} High Court by the Principal and^{the allegations} made by the^petitioner are baseless."

¶29

The petitioner in the^{presentContemptpetition} contends that, the respondent^{has mischievously interpreted} the order of this court^{dated 71.O9.2023 passedin} W.P.No.15669 of 2023 and^{also filed reply Rejoinder and in} particu la r paragraPh nos.3 and 4 of the said^{rePlY rejoinder} reads as under:

¶30

3&4: It submitted that the pa ragraph under^isrespectfu reply^llYis not only illegal but^a

¶31

¶32

5fl,.)

¶33

blatant attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court and cause prejudice to the petitioner. In saying that "Since the principal has received information and was initiating the procedure as per Hon'ble High Court Orders, and requested the petitioner to wait" the contemnor further misleading himself and this Hon'ble Court suggesting that this Hon,ble Court ordered for a fresh enquiry but never ordered to set aside the suspension. It is also false to state that the contemnor requested the petitioner to wait. Fact stands on record that the contemnor had deliberately denied permission to rejoin till this Hon'ble Court had intervened in the present case.

¶34

In paragraph No.4 the contemnor has further stated that "The court has instructed to proceed afresh in matter". Such language or expression or instructions were never passed by this Hon,ble Court. There were no instructions except setting aside the impugned suspension and the principles laid down in the orders of this Hon'ble Court are conveniently ignored, thus amounting to wilful contem pt. "

¶35

¶36

This court opines that this Court admittedly had not instructed the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter, this Court however, as borne on record in its order dated 11.O9.2O23 passed in W.p.No.15669 of 2O23 observed that it was open to the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter if the respondents intend to do so duly following the principles of natural justice by providing reasonabte opportunity to the petitioner and following the procedural guidelines prescribed in National Medical Commission (prevention and

¶37

¶38

:rc

¶39

Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges/Institutions) Regulation, 2021, the Governing Act as on date and in particular Regulation 23.

¶40

6, Taking into consideration the liberty given by this Court in its order dated 11.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.15669 of 2023 and also taking into consideration the observations of this Court (as referred to and extracted above) in the said order dated 11.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.15669 of 2023 and also the specific averments made at^paragraph no.5 of the Counter aFFidavit of the respondent the^present Contempt

¶41

case filed by the petitioner herein is closed. However,

¶42

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶44

Petition, sha ll stand closed.

¶45

Sd/. M. RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPUTYYTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 Dr. Dlvvela^{Mohan Das S/onot known to the.Petitioner Occ: Principaland} Additional^{DME, Kakatrva tllqidiii;il"g":Nizampura' Ransampet Street'} Warangat,^{Telangana 506 007 </sup> :-1}

¶50

3 Sls 33ls^{3'Sill'il:5,i:?'ffl[?!$lilnorP"X"Jror the stateor} Telangana

¶51

Two CD^Copies

KvoTLNJB

HIGH COURT

DATED: 01.12.2023

ORDER

CC .No. 2074 ot 2023

l''1
'S
2 B iiii i;:i
.$
C),
* *
cFs rr<TC$. gO

¶60

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE
WITHOUT COSTS
G)d'
2k
\3 a

Dr. M.A. Saiff Ali v. Dr. Divvela Mohan Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. M.A. Saiff Ali v. Dr. Divvela Mohan Das

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

Bhukya Mothi, Nalgonda Dist and Another Vs Prl Secy, School Education Dept, Hyd and 4 Ot

M. Panduranga Reddy Vs Smt. N. Narsamma

Shaaz College of Engineering and Technology Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

Guntoju Sadguna Chary Vs D. Venkateswarlu

Vemparala Rks Sharma Vs Sri N.Sridhar

M/s. Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shri Prabhakar Rao