Disposed

M/s.Gokul Constructions, v. D.S.Lokesh Kumar, Ias.

Telangana HC8 Jun 2023CC/825/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case alleging violation of a High Court order regarding building permission and stakeholder notice, the Court held that the respondent had complied with the underlying order by disposing of representations and closing the contempt case without costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty granted to petitioner to approach Court if aggrieved by respondent's speaking order; no costs.

M/s.Gokul Constructions, Vs D.S.Lokesh Kumar, Ias. — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[^32e6 ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 825OF 2023

¶8

Contempt Case filed Under Sections^'1 0 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to^punish the respondents herein for willfully and disobeying/deliberately/ violating the Orders of the High Court dated 02.02.2023^passed in W.P.No.1B23 of 2023.

¶9

Between:

¶10

lvl/s. Gokul Constructions, rep. by its Proprietor V Dayanand, S/o. late V.Mallesh Yadav, aged about 43^years, Occ: Business, Rl/o H.No.5-2-97 to 1O2, Jambagh, Hyderapad.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

D.S.Lokesh Kumar, l.A.S., Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

lA NO:^'f OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondent to stop any construction on the schedule^{property pursuant} to impugned building^permission vide^permit no.21 56/GHMC ISLP 12O22-BP , dated 12-02-2022 in file no.005801lGHMCl3114ISLP12021-BP, during the^pendency of the Contempt Case.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B. MAHENDER REDDY

¶18

3Rl

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: M.A.K. MUKHEED (SC FOR GHMC)

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

I I

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶23

CONTEMPT CASE No.825 of 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner alleging the willful and deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1823 of 2023 dated O2.O2.2023.

¶26

Vide above order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the respondent Corporation to consider the representations dated 17.1O.2O22 and 19.12.2022 $fter^{issuing notice to all the stake holdersincluding Writ} Petitioners and respondents therein and also afford an opportunity of personal hearing and also examine all the documents produced by either parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶27

Alleging non compliance of the above order passed by this Court, this present Contempt Case came to be filed by the petitioner.

¶28

On 17.O4.2023, notice was issued to the respondent in the Contempt Case. After receipt of notice, respondent filed counter affidavit on 08.06.2023. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is inter alfa stated that in compliance of the order of this Court dated O2.O2.2O23 passed in Writ Petition

¶29

¶30

¶31

C.('.No.825 of 2023 dt: 08.06.2023

¶32

\ \

¶33

No. 1823 of 2023, the respondent has issued notice to all the concerned parties and after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, it has disposed of the representations submitted by the petitioner vide referred above and passed a speaking order vide Proc.No.O05801/GHMC/31 14 / SLP2 /2022BP dated 25.05.2023.

¶34

¶35

¶36

In view of the above; this Court is of the opinion that since the respondent has complied with the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1823 of 2023 dated, 02.O2.2023 and disposed of the representations of the petitioner referred above, there is no willful and deliberate violation on the part of the respondent in violating the above order.

¶37

Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner if he is still aggrieved by the speaking order passed by the respondent dated 25.O5.2023, he is at liberty to question the same in accordance with law. No costs.

¶38

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

SD- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUDT REGISTRAR //TRUE coPY/l ( Ul SECTION OFFICER

¶40

¶41

To, 1 Sri D.S.Lokesh Kumar, IAS., Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶42

One CC to SRl. B. IVAHENDER REDDY Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. IM.A.K. TMUKHEED (SC FOR GHI/C) [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies CHR

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810612023

ORDER

C.C.No.825 of 2023

r\E S]^ 14:
3 J ruJUtl 2tr13
,,//.. o .z./';1 ,

¶49

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

@@ &ro 29t^.."

M/s.Gokul Constructions, v. D.S.Lokesh Kumar, Ias.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Gokul Constructions, v. D.S.Lokesh Kumar, Ias.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uppala Kanakaraju, Vs Sri D.S.Lokesh Kumar, IAS

Orsu Pardhasaradhi Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Ali Asghar Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Papasani Giridhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sunkari Shiva Kumar Shivauah Vs Shri . Arvind Kumar, IAS

Yeruva Hari Shankar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana