Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Katroth Hari Vs Dr. a Sharath — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

Home
Telangana HC
2025
Katroth Hari Vs Dr. a SharathKatroth Hari v. Dr. a Sharath

Disposed¶27

Katroth Hari v. Dr. a Sharath

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 10 to 12

Telangana HC21 Feb 2025CC/1303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, Contempt Case CC.No.1303 of 2024 (Katroth Hari v. Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Dept. and others), decided 21-02-2025 by Justice Pulla Karthik. Contempt petition under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging wilful disobedience of the High Court order dated 03.04.2024 in W.P.No.1143 of 2023 concerning regular appointment as Watchman. On hearing, the Government Pleader reported compliance: representation considered and claim rejected vide Memo Rc.No.A/1321/2023 dated 29.04.2024; petitioner's counsel did not dispute this. Contempt case closed with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case closed; liberty granted to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies, if he so desires; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed; no costs.

Why is it important?

The Court recorded the learned Government Pleader's submission that, in compliance with the order dated 03.04.2024 in W.P.No.1143 of 2023, the respondents considered the petitioner's representation and rejected his claim for regular appointment as Watchman vide Memo Rc.No.A/1321/2023 dated 29.04.2024, and this submission was not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ¶26

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt Case closed; liberty granted to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies, if he so desires; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed wilful disobedience of the order dated 03.04.2024 in W.P.No.1143 of 2023 so as to be punished for contempt under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Court's answer

The Court recorded the learned Government Pleader's submission that, in compliance with the order dated 03.04.2024 in W.P.No.1143 of 2023, the respondents considered the petitioner's representation and rejected his claim for regular appointment as Watchman vide Memo Rc.No.A/1321/2023 dated 29.04.2024, and this submission was not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

Recording the above submissions, the Court closed the Contempt Case, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies if he so desires; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed; no costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 10 to 12 - Alleged wilful disobedience of order dated 03.04.2024 in W.P.No.1143 of 2023 - Learned Government Pleader submits that in compliance the respondents considered the petitioner's representation and rejected his claim for regular appointment as Watchman vide Memo Rc.No.A/1321/2023 dated 29.04.2024 - Submission not seriously disputed by petitioner's counsel - Contempt Case closed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies - Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed - No costs.

A

[³³⁰¹ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1303 OF 2024

contempt case under section ro to 12 of contempt of courts Act, 197.r to punish the Respondents for their willful, blatant and utter violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 03.04,2024 made in W.p.No.1143 of 2023.

Between:

Katroth Hari, S/o Sri Katroth Chandru, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Service, R/o H.No. 955/56, New Colony, Varni tvland"al, Satyanarayanapuram, Nizamanad_ 520011.

...Petitioner

AND

1 p1,l Snaraln, Prinicipal ,Secretary, Tribat Welfare office at BRBK Bhawan, I elangana Secretariat. Hyderabad TS.

2 Burra-V_enkatesham, Prin icipal Secreta ry, Ed ucation Department, Office at BRBK Bhawan, Telangana Secretariat. Hyderabad.

3 Sri. K Naga. Rao, The District Tribal Development Officer Collectorate Complex, Nizamabad DistiTt-SO300 1

4 Sri Lakshmi, The Head Master, S.T Ashram School, Varni. Nizambad

...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Roop Rani

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : Gp for Services - V

The Court made the following: ORDER

I

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KAR'I'HIK

CONTEMFT CASE No.1303 of 2Oil4

ORDER:

This Contempt Case, under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 197l, is hled seeking to^{punish the} contemnors/respondents for their willful disobedience cf the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 1143 of 2023 dated O3.O4.2024.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, .learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in complialce of the order dated O3.O4.2O24 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 1143 oi 2023, t}:e respondents considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected his claim lor regular appointment as Watchnran vide Memo in Rc.No.A/ 1 32l 2023 dated 29.O4.2024.

The abbve made submission is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Recording the above made submissions, the Contempt Case is closed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies, if he so desires.

PK,J C.C.No.13O3^{of 2O24}

/

2

Pending^{miscellaneouspetitions' if any' sha1l stard closed'No}

costs.

//TRUE COPY//

SD/. T.SI IVAS DEPUfi^REG

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

One CC'to'Ms.Roop^{Rani, Advocate [OPUC]} 2. TwoCCs^{to the Gp tor Services- V' Hign Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad^(OUT)

\

Two CD^CoPies

ADK/PSt,

$

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110212025

ORDER

CC.No.1303 of 2024

1 HI.. ST,4 r4
k
I )
tii ) 11 APfl 2025 .
I .C
t I
o€SpaTC-.9O

CLOSING THE^{CONTEMPT CASE} WITHOUT COI}TS

@)iq'1"9 W

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondents committed wilful disobedience of the order dated 03.04.2024 in W.P.No.1143 of 2023 so as to be punished for contempt under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.¶24
The court held
The Court recorded the learned Government Pleader's submission that, in compliance with the order dated 03.04.2024 in W.P.No.1143 of 2023, the respondents considered the petitioner's representation and rejected his claim for regular appointment as Watchman vide Memo Rc.No.A/1321/2023 dated 29.04.2024, and this submission was not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.ratio¶26

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Sections 10 to 12¶24

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Order dated 03.04.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1143 of 2023, whose alleged wilful disobedience by the respondents gave rise to the present contempt case.¶24
Prior proceeding
In purported compliance with the writ order, the respondents (as submitted by the learned Government Pleader) considered the petitioner's representation and rejected his claim for regular appointment as Watchman vide Memo in Rc.No.A/1321/2023 dated 29.04.2024; this submission was not seriously disputed by the petitioner's counsel.¶25
Prior proceeding
Filing of the present Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking to punish the respondents/contemnors.¶24

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Katroth Hari¶9
Ms. Roop Rani
respondent
(Individual name illegible in source) - Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Office, BRBK Bhawan, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad (Respondent No. 1)¶12
respondent
Burra-V_enkatesham (OCR-damaged) - Principal Secretary, Education Department, BRBK Bhawan, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad (Respondent No. 2)¶13
respondent
Sri K. Naga Rao - The District Tribal Development Officer, Collectorate Complex, Nizamabad (Respondent No. 3)¶14
Gp for Services - V
respondent
Sri Lakshmi - The Head Master, S.T Ashram School, Varni (Respondent No. 4)¶15

Coram

AI extract

Pulla Karthikauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Telangana HC
Decided on: 21 Feb 2025 · February
Registered: 8 Jul 2024
Case no.: CC/1303/2024
CNR: HBHC010307622024
Topic: Contempt of Court
Bench: Pulla Karthik
Disposal: CLOSED NO COSTS
Case type: Contempt Case

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Pulla Karthik

R Roopa Vs The State of Telangana
20 Feb 2025
A. Christopher Vs The State of Telangana
20 Feb 2025
Rathod Vilas Vs State of Telangana
20 Feb 2025
Y.Kanakaiah Vs Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S., Ias.
21 Feb 2025
M/s. Pragathi Urban Rural Development Society Vs The Nizamabad Municipal Corporation
21 Feb 2025
Mudigonda Shirisha Vs Smt Mallaiah Bhattu
21 Feb 2025

Cite this judgement

Katroth Hari v. Dr. a Sharath, CC/1303/2024 (TEL), decided on 21 February 2025.

The High Court for the State of Telangana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Sections 10 to 12

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 03.04.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1143 of 2023, whose alleged wilful disobedience by the respondents gave rise to the present contempt case.
In purported compliance with the writ order, the respondents (as submitted by the learned Government Pleader) considered the petitioner's representation and rejected his claim for regular appointment as Watchman vide Memo in Rc.No.A/1321/2023 dated 29.04.2024; this submission was not seriously disputed by the petitioner's counsel.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Pulla Karthik

Parties & counsel