Disposed

M.A. Ayyub v. Sri K. Venu Gopal

Telangana HC7 Feb 2025CC/2436/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt case alleging willful disobedience of a writ order directing the Tahsildar to consider representations for mutation and e-Pattadar Passbook. The respondent had considered the representations and rejected them by speaking order dated 07.12.2024 for violation of assignment conditions. The Court found no violation, closed the contempt case, and allowed the petitioner liberty to challenge tha

What the court decided

AI extract

M.A. Ayyub Vs Sri K. Venu Gopal — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2436 OF²⁰²⁴

¶7

Contempt Case under Section 10 to 12^{of Contempt of CourtsAct, 197'1to} punish the Respondents herein for their willful disobedience of the^{order of this} Court dated 15-07-2024^passed in W.P.No.18503^{of 2024.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

lVl.A. Ayyub, Sio. Late. M.A, Aleem, Aged^abo_ut 32^{Years. Occ. DailyLabour,} R/o. H.No. 2-2-21613, Street Khanapur,^{Near S.K Kirana, Adilabad.}

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri K. Venu Gopal, Tahsildar, Mavala Mandal^{and Village, AdilabadDistrict}

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Sourabh Agarwal⁽ None^appeared)

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Somaiah Ezra^Shastri,

¶16

AGP FOR ASSIGNMENT

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶19

CONTEMPT CASE No.2436 OF 2o24

¶20

ORAL ORDE,R

¶21

None appears for the petitioner.

¶22

Heard Mr.Somaiah Ezra Shastri, learned^.A,ssistant Government Pleader for Assignment.

¶23

This C,>r.rtempt Case is filed alleging u'illful^and deliberate violation of order dated 15.07.2024^{passed by} this Court in Writ Petition No.1B5O3 of^2024.

¶24

By the aloresaid order, this Court dispost:d of^the said Writ Petition directing the respondent-Tahsildar^to consider thr-' representations dated^19.O7 .2019^and 03.08.2019 submitted by the^petitioner and^pass appropriate ot'ders, in accordance^{with law, b5' putting} the petitioner ald all other^{affected parties oIr notice,} within a period of eight (08) weeks from the^{date of} receipt of a copy of the said order.

¶25

¶26

In the aforesaid representations, the petitioner requested the respondent-Tahsildar to mutate his name and issue e-Pattadar Passbook.

¶27

The respondent has filed counter contending that the said representations submitted by the petitioner a-re considered and the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is violation of assignment conditions. He has also filed copy of the said speaking order dated 07.12.2024 along with counter. Though said counter was filed on 26.12.2024, the petitioner did not file any rejoinder adverting the same.

¶28

In the light of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no violation much less the willful violation. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the said speaking order dated 07.72.2024 passed by the re spondent-Tahsildar.

¶29

-l

¶30

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶31

pending in the Contempt Case shall stand closed.

¶32

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

Sdi- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPIJTY REGISTRAR

¶35

SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

One CC to Sri Sourabh Agarwal, Advocate tOpUCI 2. Two ccs to GP Fo_R ASSTGNMENT, High court for the State of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies

ADK^ft-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710?-12025

ORDER

CC.No.2436 of 2024

thi1 5lA/t
(
16 APB M5 za9
.L
I t
oEspatt:t{

¶45

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

¶46

("-fl" frr,'

M.A. Ayyub v. Sri K. Venu Gopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M.A. Ayyub v. Sri K. Venu Gopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Niazuddin Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Zubair Vs The State of Telangana

Gudimalla Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Kawarpal Pihal Vs Kanakadurga Chit Funds Private Limited

Boddepalli Prasad Rao Vs Sri Vijaya Chit Fund (Karimnagar) Private Ltd.

Kommu Laxmaiah Vs Sri K.Shashanka I.A.S.