Disposed

Anita Agarwal v. D. Ronald Rose

Telangana HC13 Sept 2024CC/461/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt case alleging violation of an interim order restraining use of additional floors of a Begum Bazar building. The municipal authorities reported that they had sealed the unauthorized floors under Section 461-A GHMC Act in compliance with this Court's direction. The contempt case was closed with liberty to contest the main writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; respondents permitted to file counter affidavit in W.P.No.9265 of 2023; seizure of unauthorized 3rd, 4th and 5th floors directed to continue till its disposal.

Anita Agarwal Vs D. Ronald Rose — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 461 OF 2024

¶7

Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents herein for Wilfully disobeying of the Orders of the High Court dated 0410412023 passed in WP No 926512023. Between:

¶8

Anita Agarwal, Wo Ram Swaroop Agarwal Aged 60 years Occ Housewife R/o H no 14721 and 1472111 Begum Bazar Hyderabad Telangana

¶9

2 E"T Swqloop Agarwal, S/o Late Ram Das Agarwal Aged 60 years Occ Business R/o H no 14721 and 1472111 Begum Ba2ar Hydeiabad Tdlangana

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

D. Ronald Rose, S/o not known Aged major, Occ Commissioner GHMC Tankbund Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Venkatesh Dhotre, S/o Not known Aged major, Occ Zonal Commissioner Khairtabad Zone GHMC Khairtabad Hyderabad

¶14

3 Atul Patodi, S/o Late Babulal Patodi Aged about 60, Occ Business R/o H.no '14-7 -22, Begumbazar, Hyderabad 50001 2

¶15

Anup Patodi, S/o Late Babulal PatodiAged about 60, Occ Business R/o l-l.no 14-7 -22, Begumbazar, Hyderabad 500012

¶16

...RESPONDENT

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. J. C. Francis

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri K. Siddharth Rao

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 and 4: Sri Thomas Joseph lloyd(Not Present) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR^REDDY

¶21

CONTEMPT CASE No.46L of2024

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation^{of the} order, dated 04.O4.2023 passed by this Courtⁱⁿ W.P.No.9265 of 2023.

¶24

This Court, uide order, dated^04.O4.2023, tn W.P.No.9265 of 2023 directed respondent Nos.2^{and 3} therein not to permit respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein^to use additional three floors,^pending further^orders.

¶25

This Court, vide order, dated 21.06.2024 in this Contempt Case directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein^to seize the additional three floors of the subject building^and file a report before this Court, without being^influencedby the orders passed by the Court below in^O.S.No.738 of 2022 and O.S.No.1889 of 2023.

¶26

Even after issuance of notices in this Contempt Case, there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and n,l counter affidavit has been filed till date.

¶27

¶28

CVBR, J cc 461 2024

¶29

In compliance with the order, dated 21.06,2024, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 fied a report, dated 25.O7.2024 before this Court, wherein it is stated that, the respondent corporation has seized (sealed) the unauthorized^{3rd, 4th} and Sft floors at premises bearing H.Nos. l4-7-21 12, l4-7' 22 and 14-7-23, situated at Begum Bazar,^Hyderabadon 15.07.2024 with the help of Special Task Force^team, GHMC and Police authorities by issuing notice under Section 461-A of GHMC Act, 1955 dated 1O.O7.2O24 pending further orders of this Court in W.P.No.9265 of 2023 and C.C.No.46 I of 2024, annexing thereto^{the copies} of the notices and photographs of the above^saidseizure.

¶30

Since respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a^report before this Court in compliance of the order^dated 21.06.2024, this Contempt Case is closed permitting^the respondents to contest their case in the main^{writ petition} i.e., W.P.No.9265 of 2023 by filing counter affidavit.^{It is} made clear that till the disposal of W.P.No.9265 of^2023, the respondents are directed to continue the seizure over

¶31

¶32

CVBR, J cc 461 2024

¶33

the unauthorized 3.d, 4tt' arrd 5e floors at premises bearing H.Nos. 14-7-2t/2, t4-Z-22 and t4-7-23, situated at Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

Sd/- K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to Sri. J. C. Francis, Advocate tOpUCl

¶42

One CC to Sri K Siddharth Rao, Advocate tOpUCl

¶43

One CC to Sri I'homas Joseph lloyd, Advocate.[OUl]

¶44

Two CD Copies

DUgh

CAL

I ,

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 3/09/2024

ORDER

CC.No.461 of 2024

o ({ liiE St4 rp
t
e
J
()
() 0 5 N[l/ 202{
ti
o
-{.,/-:- /'
1)Esnz,
,-.,,^v

¶53

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE.

¶54

f*e

Anita Agarwal v. D. Ronald Rose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Agarwal v. D. Ronald Rose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ismail Bhai Vs The Principal Secretary

Tallam Sravan kumar Vs The Union of India

Goulikar Umarani Vs The State of Telangana

Naresh Gandhari Vs The Union of India

Shakapuram Shankaraiah Vs Sri G.Srinivasa Rao

Peddaveni Yamuna Vs Sri. Anurag Jayanthi