Disposed

G. Rukmini Bai v. R.V. Karnan

Telangana HC12 Dec 2025CC/3647/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged violation of a High Court order dated 05.08.2025 in W.P.No.22966 of 2025 and filed a contempt case against GHMC officials. Counsel stated the orders were complied with except adjudication of interest, and sought liberty. The Court recorded the submission, closed the contempt case without costs, leaving petitioners free to pursue remedies under law.

What the court decided

AI extract

G. Rukmini Bai Vs R.V. Karnan — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

;;\

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE^{N.V,SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶7

CONTEMPT C AS^E NO:³⁶⁴⁷ OF²⁰²⁵

¶8

Contempt Case filed Under^{Sectlons 10 to 1 2 of Contemptof CourtsAct,} 1971 to punish the respondents^{hereinviolating and dlsobeyrngthe directions of the} High Court dated 05.08.2025^{passed in W P.No.22966 of 2025}

¶9

Between:

¶10

G. Rukmini Bai, W/o G^{Balram,aged about 79 years, Occ Housewife,} R/o H.No 13-3-733/4, Jiyaguda,^Hyderabad.

¶11

K Savitri, W/o K. Janardhan^{Reddy Aged about 61 yqq1s,OccHousewife} R/o H No 8-13-74 Raghavenora eolony^{Opp' NPASivarampally'} Rajendranagar. Ranga^{Reddy District}

¶12

K Shvamala. W/o K Damodar^{Reddy.Aged about 60 years O'^-c-Housewife} R/o^'H.No 8-13-74. Raghavendra^{CoronyOpp. NPASivarampally'} Rajendranagar Ranga Reddy^District.

¶13

...Petitioners

¶14

AND

¶15

1 R.V. Karnan, S/o. Not known to^{Petitioners,Commissioner'GHMC, With} Office at Municipal Complex,^{Tank Bund, Hyderabad.}

¶16

2 Ramulu Naik, Sio.^{Not Knownto PetitionersSpecial DeputyCo-llector Land} aJouisition Greater Hvderabad^{Municipal Corporation,With Offlce at} Municipal Complex,^{T-ankBund. Hyderabad.}

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRISANKALP PISSAY}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: - - - -

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

-,^{, vs, r^dry} rrssav, AdvocelFTap al

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THT STATE OF TELANG I NA AT

¶23

¶24

HYDERABAD

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE N.v.SHRAVAI\i (UMAR CONTEMPTC ASE No.3547 of2025

¶26

DATE OF ORD ER:1,2.1,2.2025

¶27

Befween:

¶28

Mrs. G Rukmini Bai and two others

¶29

AND

¶30

...1)( I tioners

¶31

Sri. R V Karnan ancl one other

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

.. Reslr' ndgnlt

¶34

Alleging r.icrlation oI thc orcicr datcci 05.0g.2025 passc(i r this Cr.lur t in Writ Petrtion No.22966 of 2025, the present Contempt Case ir, iied

¶35

2 Today when the matter has been taken up for hear rg, learned counsel for thc petitioners submits that bhe orclers passecl b.,. t rjs Clourt in Writ Petition No.22966 of 2025 dated 05.0g.2025 has been coc plied with, however, the interest component is yet to be adjuclicated ar I pray this Court to grant liberty to petitioners to seek appropriate remetj., rs available under law.

¶36

3' Recorcli^g thc subrnission maclc b., the rcar.necr co,-r r .l f.r trre petitioners, this Conternpt Case is clor;er-{, lcaving it open to th I :etitioners lo pursuc thcir. lcmc,riir:s, in accrtrclancc lvith ltrw,

¶37

X4isccllarreous pctitions, if anv, pcr.rr-1ing iu t).ris contcnrI i:trst, shali

¶38

stancl ciosed. No ortlct .rs to costs.

¶39

i ,- V-KAVITHA
DE r / REGISTRAR
FU
<br><br>,TRUE COPY//
SE )C] ON OFFICER

¶40

To,1 One CC to Sri Sankat p Pissay, Advocate loPUCl

¶41

*- a.hla - ^.

¶42

Two^{CD CoPies} ABK;?SI, p.^r. -

---La1,q-aI^{^ ^ ,}

HIGH COURT

DATED:^1211212025

ORDER

CC.No.3647^{of 2025}

/i f<i'ffi,?=itt<br>,'t :,
)
t
1l .; 7 7 I t I I I li (.) I
-L.
*{

¶49

CLOSING THE^CONTEMPTCASE

¶50

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶51

2f>'<sup>)'b'

G. Rukmini Bai v. R.V. Karnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

G. Rukmini Bai v. R.V. Karnan

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

M/s. Ocean Breeze Luxury Spa Vs The State of Telangana

M. Amarnath Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Gangadari Anil Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana

G. Venkataiah Goud Vs The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary

Sri.B.Kesava Rao Vs The State of Telagana

Sri. Md. Jahangir Ali Vs The State of Telangana