Contempt petition filed for violation of High Court order in W.P. No. 46381 of 2022. Respondents submitted compliance via Lr. No. dated 22.08.2024. Court held merits cannot be examined in contempt and decided to close the case without costs.
Contempt case is closed. There is no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1441 OF 2024
contempt case filed Under sections 10 to 12 of contempt of courts Act to punish the respondents herein for wilfully disobeyed the orders of the High court dated29.12.2022 passed in t.A No. I of 2022 in W.p.No 46381 o,f 2022.
Between:
A. Ramchandar, S/o Pochaiah, aged about 56 years, Working as public Health worker, Nizamabad Municipar corporation, Nizamabad. Nizamabad District...
AND
...PETITIONER
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl p. RAGHAVENDER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: Gp FOR SERVICES _l
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A. MALAHAR RAO STANDING COUNSEL FOR NMC
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
CONTEMPT CASE No. 144I OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri A. Malahar Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.
2022 in W.P.No.45381 of 2O22 is extracted hereunder:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services.
The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for granting the benefit of minimum time scale as per the law laid down by the Hon'blt: Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagajith Singh and others reported in 2017(1) SCC 148 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, within a period of (2) weeks from the date of .receipt of copy of this order, duly communicatinq the decision to the petitioner."
\t
)
of 2022 in W.P.No.463Bt of 2022 had been complied with.
6, Accordingly the Contempt Case is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed
Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPU REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
One CC to SRI P. RAGHAVENDER REDDY, Advocate CC to SRI P. RAGHAVENDER REDDY, Advocate to SRI P. RAGHAVENDER REDDY, Advocate SRI P. RAGHAVENDER REDDY, Advocate P. RAGHAVENDER REDDY, Advocate RAGHAVENDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]
r'AR/DL
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/09/2024
ORDER
CC.No-1441 ol 2024
yrE S 141
€
(
+ 'r<'
co 1 g lll0l/ 202{
o9z
-l
oa. I',\TCHgO
q
;t
M
**
CLOSING THE CONTEMP CASE WITHOUT COSTS.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition alleging violation of the High Court order dated 29.12.2022 is maintainable given the respondents' submission of compliance via Lr. No. C2/9618/2016.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagajith Singh and othersReferred¶28
State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagajith Singh and others reported in 2017(1) SCC 148 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Ramchandar
Shri M. Danakishore
D. Divya
Sri Jitesh Patil
SUREPALLI NANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
