Dismissed

Tadagonda Krishna Swamy v. Sri Gone Anvesh

Telangana HC27 Jan 2023CC/2152/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the petitioner challenged the closure of proceedings by the respondent Commissioner for not acting on a show cause notice. The Court held that the merits of the underlying civil dispute required adjudication in appropriate proceedings and found no wilful disobedience.

What did the court decide?

The contempts case is closed without costs on the ground that there is no wilful disobedience.

Tadagonda Krishna Swamy Vs Sri Gone Anvesh — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTIGE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2152 OF 2022

¶9

Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the Respondent for violation and willful disobedience of the orders of this Honble Court passed in W,P.No. 24024 ol 2022 dated 26.05.2022

¶10

Between:

¶11

Tadagonda Krishna Swamy, S/o Ramaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Government Employee, Rl/o. H.No 6-3-108, Vemulawada Town of Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶12

...PETITIONER/sTH RESPONDENT

¶13

AND

¶14

Sri Gone Anvesh, Commissioner, Vemulawada Municipality., Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONOENT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PONNAM MAHESH BABU

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B. JAGAN MADHAVA RAO

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

¶21

THE HON BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI TIEVI

¶22

COIITEMPT CASE No.2152 of^2P22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The Cor-rL<:rnl t Clase is filed seeking^pulrishn,lnI tc^the respondent under Section¹⁰ to¹² of^{Contempt of Crrt rt.{ct, for} violation anci u,il ul disobedience of the orders of^t his Court dated 26.05.12022 passed in^{W.P.No.24O24of 2022 ,trtd 1o pass} such other order t r orders.

¶25

The Writ.^)etition No.24024 ol 2022^r.r as^{li Ie 'd} 'rv^one Nal,ini -srinir';rs ar d the^petitioner tn^{the C.C. is respo-rdertlNo.5} therein. This Oou't, r'ide order dated 26.05.2022.^{htLrl directed} the official r€rspor dents to issue a notice to the ''vr;l^{pel itioner} about the survey eport ard after^considering the^{explana.tionof} the writ petitione^- to the said nolice, the official^{rt::;pondents} were directed to take action in accordance with^{.iaw. After} receiving the co1 y of the order of this Court,^{tl.re official} respondents htltre isstted a^{show cause notice} dated^I '+.Oo.2O22 to the writ petitio rer and the^{writ petitioner hzrs su : rnitt,ed his} explanation on 23 06.'2022.^{Th.e petitioner} in^{the Contr:mF'tCase} alleges that thc rt spondents have^llot considered^{ar r l ha.ve not} passed orders itr lccordance with the direction s^{of I his Court.} The official respondents have filed^{a counter} affidavit^{t:lorg with}

¶26

c c No 2r52 ()r 2C2i

¶27

¶28

a copy of the order dated 16.0 1.2023 q.hcrei. the respondents have directed the u rit petitror_.c,- as r,r.ell as the pelitioner in the Contcmpt Case to approach tlrr.: Civil Courr l.or rc.dressal of tite dispute which is civil in nature.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 16.O1.2023 is not in accordance with the directions of this Court. However, this Court is of thc opinion that t}.e merits of the said order can be adjuclicated only in appropriate proceedings and not in the contempt pror;eedings. As the respondents have issued the show cause notice and therea_fter passed the order aJter considering the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner, this Court does not lind any wilful disobedience on the part of the official respondents.

¶30

4 In view of the same, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶32

Sd/- T. KRISHNA^KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR lU) /TTRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶33

To,

¶34

1 Sri Gone Anvesh,^{commissioner,Vemulawada Municipality., Rajannasircilla} District.

¶35

One CC to SRl.^{PONNAM MAHESH BABU, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶36

One^{CC to SRl. B. JAGAN MADHAVA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶37

Two CD^CoPies

¶38

¶39

¶40

-^'1'- - - -Jr-,:r...

HIGH COU IT

DATED:27fi112023

ORDER

CG.No.2152 of 2022

.t HE: :i 14 i-
("
: i
itf i
) ri I ilAR
\ ,l
.t -
\i' '.'

¶46

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

¶47

WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

ttr yo^v \r)

Tadagonda Krishna Swamy v. Sri Gone Anvesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tadagonda Krishna Swamy v. Sri Gone Anvesh

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

Sham Kumar Vs Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

M. Srinivasa Reddy Vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

M/s. Sri Sai Baba Cellulose Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Jado Mangya Vs Sri N.Sridhar, IAS

Sadineni Madhuri Vs Smt. Vakati Karuna, I.A.S.

Reddys Colony Residential Welfare Society Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others