Petitioners alleged respondents violated status quo orders in a writ concerning outsourcing attendants' services. The court found new candidates had reported for duty on 13.11.2020, before the orders were passed on 24.11.2020, so no contempt was made out and the case was closed without costs.
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.
I I a ! I I a I IlI I I I I I i t I I
t32521
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTTCE SUREPALLI NANDA
CAS NO:164 oF 2021
Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High court may be pleased to punish the respondents herein for their willful Deliberately and intentionally violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.p.No.1gggs of 202O, dated 24-11-2020.
Between
AND
^i
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRIARVIND KUMAR KATA Counsel for tthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-|!| (TG) The Court m;ade the following: ORDER
l ! : t I l I Ii I I ltI I I t I II t I :
' ! i il
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
in
W.P.No.19995 of 2O2O
ORDER:
Heard Sri Aravind Kumar Kata, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Ill appearing on behalf of the respondents 1to 3.
A.
Notice before admission.
Post after four weeks.
Status guo obtaining ason today shall be maintained'
t
r,
I /
2
sN,t C.C.No.764-202, in W,P.No.rg995 ol 2o2O
B. 'fhe counte ffidavit FIEN
beha of
have reported for duw on 13.11.2020(Annexure: 6). The same was brought to the noticeof the Hon'ble Court during thepresentations. Thepetitioner, inhis aFfidavit of contempt of Case, mentioned thatthis Hon'ble Court has granted interim orders on 4.11.2020 instead of 24.LL.2O2O which is clearly misleadingthis Hon'ble Court and it is respectfully submitted thatthe DVAHO or the District Administration has not deviated the orders of the Hon'ble Court and submit that the(6) individuals have reported on 13.11.2020 in their allotted
3
SN,J C.C.No.764_2O27 in w.P.No.79995 of 2O2O
tr \
1 )
places. Another candidate has not joined even up to 24.LL.2O20 from which day, the Hon'ble Court Status Quoordershave comein to force. Hence,no violation of the Hon'ble Court orders."
4
\
sN,t C.C,No.764_2027 in W.P,No:79995 of 2O2O
(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case.
(b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Services-III appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(c) The interim orders of this Court, dated
24.L1..2O2O passed in W.P.No.19995 of 2O2O.
(d) The averments made at para Nos.6 & 7 ofthe counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents hereirn.
lfhe present contempt case is closed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
SD'-v. DEPUTY ,ITRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER
To,
\
\n/R/pqI
\ \
HIGH COURT
DATED:'1110712025
1t{ E S TA
<br>3 0g rE8 2026
.
ORDER
GC.No.164 of 2021
GLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE
b
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents wilfully violated the interim status quo orders dated 24.11.2020 in W.P.No.19995 of 2020.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kommu Prasad
Velpula Kiran
Gonnala Murali
Koieneni Kranthi Kumar
Meegada Lalitha
Fathima
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
