Dismissed

P.Y.Ramachandram v. Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy

Telangana HC21 Sept 2023CC(TR)/237/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the petitioner failed to appear at three consecutive hearings. Relying on the submission that respondents implemented the impugned order, the court closed the contempt case without adjudication, granting the petitioner liberty to avail legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty granted to petitioner to avail remedies as available under law; no costs.

P.Y.Ramachandram Vs Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR.THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD^'-'

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER_ "- TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THN E

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶5

GONT EMPT CASE (TR NO: 237 OF 2017

¶6

contempt case under Section 10 ro 12 0f contempt of courts Act to punish the Respondent herein for, wilfufly viorating-ine ;r#r"or ft," H", or"'ii.s[";il'i, O.A.No 583.1 of 2013 dated 22:08.2O14.

¶7

Between:

¶8

1' P'Y Ramachandram. S/o. yeraiah.occ: Executive Engineer panchavat Rai tnstitution Division. Korha.gudeml Khr;r;;6'.i; t No. 1 -1 6t 4O2, Raviteij xill?,050"]33nwoPrabh"at-N;s;-ffi ";v,"B'nlit;;r;r;,''#[tili,h:;

¶9

'[tUIJ,ii'fl :',?#,XTd;'"",:1".Y,:Ui?,:,P"f ,:lff :XL"E:nlJ]*lBly,!'Sl No.7, Himayatnagir, Hyderabad - 500 oiii"^' '""'"'

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy, Engineer _ in_ Chief p o"pirtruiis-ii'GN*i;;r"rErramanzir,nyo"raoaoat#YatRa^jEngineerins

¶13

2 Sri J Raymond peter. principar Secretary to Govrnment state of reranoana Panchayat Raj Depariment iurr"si;,itldl"iriill,'irvo",. abad _ soo oi2

¶14

3 Sri B Venkateswara Rao' principar Secretary to Government GAD Services Government br i"rr-rgl"" ilIrisl"n;'lu.r"tariat, Hyderabad _

¶15

Po"EBl!,*,

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI. N KUMAR DEV

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVTCES il

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶21

CONTEMPT CASEITR I No.237 of 2Ol7

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

When the matter is taken up for hearing on 31.08.2O23, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. To give one opportunity, the matter was posted to 14.09.2023. On that day also there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. To give final opportunity, the matter is posted to 21.09.2023. Today also there is no representaLion on behalf of the petitioner.

¶24

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the respondents implemented the orders of A.P.A.T., dated 22.O8.20t4.

¶25

Recording the above submission, no further adjudication is required.

¶26

Accordingly, the Contempt Case (TR) is closed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies as available under law. No costs.

¶27

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶28

c_Iased.

¶29

¶30

SD/- SRI M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy, Engineer _ in_ Chief panchayat Raj Engineering / Department SRTGN Bhavan Erramanzil, Hyderabad _500 0g2 /

¶35

2 Sri J._ Raymond Peter, principal Secretary to Govmment State of Telangana Panchayat Raj Department Telangana Secretariat, Uyjerabad _ SOO 022

¶36

3 -91^{l,-Yl"lg!9:Y.l?Rlor-inlgpfl,sggre1ery-lgg9.ugt,:r-eltgAD services -'6+J'^}

¶37

¶38

Department Government of Telangana Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad^- 500 022

¶39

One CC to SRl. N KUMAR DEV, Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

Two CCs to the GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶41

Two CD Copies

SM KMS

Pna-(.

{

HIGH COURT JSR, J

DATED: 2110912023

1 E LA
c !E
?\Y .v.^
o
..* u_i
('
o a:
^!
ORDER *
J Hct

¶49

( (

¶50

CC (TR).No.237 of 2017

¶51

CoNTEMPT CASE (TR) IS CLOSED

¶52

?n\q.

¶53

rdn-:-t^'

P.Y.Ramachandram v. Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Y.Ramachandram v. Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy

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

N. Prashanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Ch.Rambayamma, Vs The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare

N. Bhushan Vs State of Telangana

Bantu Venkat Ramulu Vs The Tahasildar, Yalal Mandal, Yalal, Rangareddy District.

G.V.B.S. Murthy Vs State of A.P.

B.N. Thimothy Vs The District Collector (Bcw) Mahabubnagar