The High Court closed a contempt case after the respondents (GHMC) issued notices and demolished the unauthorized construction challenged by the petitioner, thereby complying with the earlier interim order.
The contempt case was closed; miscellaneous petitions pending in the contempt case were stood closed. 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.
[32s6 ]
I
I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELA,NGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
CONTEMPT cAS NO: 466 OF 2014
Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondent herein for, willfully violating, the Order of the High Court dated 16.08.2013 in WPMP No.29158 of 2013 in WP No.2317 of 2013.
Betwee n:
K. Rajesh Reddy, S/o K. Venkat Reddy, aged 36 years, Occ: Advocate Resident of H.No3-1 -74l37/D/2 Ramshankernagar, Ramanathapur Hyderabad -500 013
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS/RR1 & 2
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. V. V. BASWA RAJ
Counsel forthe Respondents: SC FORGHMC
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
I
HON'BLESRI JUSTICE C'V. BHASKAR R'I)DD.. COI\ T CASENo.466 of2(o14
ORDER:
TheCont:mPtCase has been filecl1'or '7 1l1atienof theinterimorderpassedbythisCourtinW.P.M.P : No.29158of 2013 in W'P' No'23717 of 2lol3 dated 16.08.2013
2 By theaforesaid order dated 16'08:2013' this Courtdirect.:d therespondent authcrritit::; tatake approPriater.ction on the comPlaintsof tLLt' pel tloner 10.06.2013lorr'(rmoval of datecl2 f .05 '2013and unauthorizeiconstruction'
2013 in W.P. No.237 l7 of 2013, respondent corporation has issued necessary notices dated 31.05.2013 under Sections 452(l) and 46 1(1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipa,l Corporation Act, 1955 and also issued final notice dated 10.06.2013 under Section 636 of the Act. It is also stated that the Corporation also issued a letter dated 08.07.2073 to the police for providing protection during the demolition and accordir-rgly thc unauthorized construction made by the 3''d respondent has becn partly dernolished with the assistance of the police.
I
survives to take steps in accordance urith [zr.u.. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petir,ions, if any
pending in the contempt case, shali also star,d cktsed.
S,D/.K.SAILESHI C t:)UTf REGISTRAR
,TRUE COPY//
l:;ECTION OFFICER
To,
z-
HIGH COURT
DATED: 25101t2023
ORDER
CC.No.466 of 2014
E STA}F
)e
,.:; ?
oz
ii 2'l tEB ?ru
i
a?'
CLOSING THE CON TEMPT CASE
;v
%x
@
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt case should be closed given the compliance by the respondents.
Whether the petitioners have any surviving cause of action in the contempt proceedings.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Rajesh Reddy
K.T. Krishna Babu
P Mahender
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
