Disposed

Telukuntla Srinivas Rao v. Sri Venkateshwar Reddy

Telangana HC4 Sept 2025CC/1285/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two contempt cases alleging non-compliance with writ interim orders regarding consideration of representations. The respondent produced proceedings dated 20.08.2025 showing the representation was considered; the court found no further adjudication required and closed both contempt cases.

What did the court decide?

Both contempt cases closed; petitioners given liberty to pursue remedies available under law.

Telukuntla Srinivas Rao Vs Sri Venkateshwar Reddy — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTETMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE Nos.1285 and^'1289 OF 2025

¶7

CONTEMPT CASE No.1285 of 2025

¶8

Petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of lndia and Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondent, for committing contempt of the directions granted by the Honourable Court by willfully and wantonly flouting the lnterim Order dated 12-02-2025 irassed in W P No.3938 of 2025.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Telukuntla Srinivas Rao, S/o Telukuntla Gopala Krishna Aged bout 55 Years, Occ. Business, R/o 1-68/3, Reddy Colony, Anjani Apartment, Pothireddypally, Sangareddy.

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

Sri Venkateshwar Reddy, S/o Not known to the petitioner The executive Engineer (R and B), 1St Floor, R and B Complex, A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad- 500 0004

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY PISSAY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.T.KALYAN

¶17

CONTEMPT CASE No.1289 ol 2025

¶18

¶19

Between:

¶20

Chandra Prakash Rathod, S/o Ramu Rathod, Aged about 31 Years, OccAgriculture Rlo 1-59-129, Balaji Nagar Colony, Near Sharada High School. tt/ryapur, Hyderabad.

...Petitioner

. r:<;::..

AND

Sri Venkateshwar Reddy, S/o Not known to the^petitiot-tt: -lhe executive Engineer (R & B), 1'' Floor, R & B Complex, A.C Guarcs Masab Tank, Hyderabad- 500 004.

¶25

...Respondent

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY PISSAY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.T.KALYAN

¶28

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶29

¶30

¶31

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENI/AS^RAO

¶32

Conternpt Case Nos.1285 of2025 and¹²⁸⁹ of2025

¶33

COMMON ORDER:

¶34

These contempt cases havc beetr^{filed seckingto} punish tl-re respondent under Sectionⁱ 0^{a nd12 of} Contempt of Courts Act for u'ilful^{anddeliberate} disobedience of the order^passed b.r' this^{Court in} W.P.No.3938 of 2025, daLed 12.O2.2025.

¶35

Since the respondent contemnor^{in both contempt} cases is the same, the cases are^{being disposed o[ by way} of this common order.

¶36

Heard Sri Vrjay Pissay, learned^{counsel forthe} petitioncr and Sri V.T.Kalyan, Iearned counsel^appearing on bchalf of tl-re respondent.

¶37

Learned counsel for the^petitioner submits^that insprte of specific direction issued by this^{Court while} disposing the writ petition in^{W.P.No.3938of} 2025,^dated 72-O2.2025, "the respondent-contemnor has not^taken steps to consider the^{representation submitted by the}

t ! a I :

petitioner on 25.O 1 .2025 and not passed thr or<ler even after exprrl' of thc time as fixed by this Court. Her-rce, the responclent contcrnnor is liable for punishmen r

¶42

Lt:errned r'ounse I appearing on . be.l rlf of tl-rc rcsponclent subrnits that the responcle t -contemnor considerecl the r-cprcse ntations submitted by -1 t: petitroncr and passecl the orrler vide letter Lr.No.EE/ NF, HYD/ DB/ D4 IEPC. rvrrrk/NIl-65/WP No.393B of 2025 l',t 25-26 1944, dated 20.08.2025 ernd tl'rc copy of the above said proceedir-rgs \rerc placed be iore this Court aft.er duly sen'ing upon thc lcarned counsel for the petiti I rer

¶43

Tirkir-rg inl o considcration of the rbovc said procccdings datccl 20.o8.2025, this Couri is of the considerccl vieu, l hzrt no further adjudicatior-r recluired in these cases

¶44

7 Accorclingl_v, these Contempt Cases rre closed Horvever, the pctitioncrs are granted libertv .o ztvail the remedies as available under larv.

=*!E#

,f,

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shal1

stand closed

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- V.KAVITHA
DEPUTY REGISTRA
ECTION OFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

'1 . One CC to Sri Vijay Pissay, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

One CC to Sri V.T.Kalyan, Advbcate IOPUC]

¶56

3, Two CD Copies

NVB/PSL

y4-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410912025

COMMON ORDER

--.:::<br>.,,. -, I r rir..---r'
z'.',... j ...<br>I '.''
,. - $
i't
'<br>1
ti t-' i lti, [ffi
!. 1
\ 1.
... i/
)^l (

¶64

CC.Nos.1285 and 1289 ot 2025

¶65

CLOSING THE BOTH CONTEMPT CASE S

¶66

5."SD
5-"

Telukuntla Srinivas Rao v. Sri Venkateshwar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Telukuntla Srinivas Rao v. Sri Venkateshwar Reddy

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

Rajath Kumar Sharma and another Vs State of Telangana and another

Mrs. Maahavi and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

M Sree Ram Sujata,and 2 Vs State of Tg,Scy,Home,Hyd,and 7

Syed AbdahuQuadri , Kashaf Vs The State of Telangana

Chandra Prakash Rathod Vs Sri Venkateshwar Reddy