Dismissed

B. Rajaiah v. Sri Navin Mittal, I.A.S

Telangana HC7 Dec 2023CC/2155/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt proceeding filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Honourable High Court of Telangana examined submissions regarding compliance with a prior order. The court accepted that the impugned order was complied with vide a speaking order and subsequent communication. Consequently, the contempt case was dismissed without any order as to costs. No other order

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed without any order as to costs.

B. Rajaiah Vs Sri Navin Mittal, I.A.S — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH^DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶5

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2155 OF²⁰²³

¶6

Contempt case filed under Sections^{10 to 12 of Conternptof Courts Act} 1971 to punish the respondent herein for^{the willful disobedience of the orders} dated: 23-11-2022^passedin WP^No- 4389^{of 2018 of this Hon'bleHighCourt}

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Rajaiah, S/o. Late Janakiram, Aged about^{71-years, Occ. Retired Tahsildar, Rl/o.} H.No.'2-4-407, Near Pochamma Temple,^{Bus Stand Area,Ashok Road, Adilabad,} Telangana State.

¶9

...PETITIONER/Writ Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Sri Navin Mittal, l.A.S, Principal Secretary^to Government,^{Revenue(Ser.ll)} Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT^NO.1

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. L.BHARGAVAKRISHNA,^Advocate

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents^: GP^{FOR SERVICESll}

¶15

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶16

¶17

¶18

HoN'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶19

CONTEMPT CASE No.2155 0F 2023

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Governmt:nt Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. It is represented by both the learned counsel for^petitioner and the l:arned Government Pleader appearing for respondent that the order, dated 23.11.2022^passed by this Court in W.P.No.4:iBg of 2018 has been complied with vtde speaking order, in Memo No.7446/Ser.Il(7)/2017, dated 21.11.2013 and the same has been communicated to the^petitioner vide CCIA's Ref . No. Se r. II (l) / 54O / 2022, da ted 23. t r.2023. 3. Taking into consideration the said submission and also duly bringing the speaking order, in Memo No.7446lSer.ll(L)l2Ol7, dated 21.11.2013 on record, which has been communicated to the petitic,ner, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶23

SD/.I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUW REGISTRAR

¶24

//TRUE COPY//

¶25

SECTION OFFICER

¶26

To, 'l . One CC to SRl. BHARGAVAKRISHNA.L Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CC; to GP FOR SERVICES-II,^{High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderat ad [OUT] 3. Two CD copies.

-P\q,

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711212023

ORDER

CG.No.2'!55 of 2023

o( 1E LA
r. P*
O)
o I
/r
(<v I
\4 ,o
<br>*
J Hgt

¶34

CC !S CLOSED.

¶35

6 ?Pta.,

¶36

r3\ztl',^',

B. Rajaiah v. Sri Navin Mittal, I.A.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Rajaiah v. Sri Navin Mittal, I.A.S

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

G. Mahesh Vs State of Telangana

Sri. B. Venkateswara Rao, Vs Chairman and Managing Director

Orsu Thirupathayya Vs The Union of India

Sri Natti Kumar Vs The Chief Election commissioner of India

Panchaneni Manohar Rao Vs The Union of India

V. Venkatanarasimha Rao Vs The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.