Allowed

N. Kamalamma v. Sri.M.Dana Kishore, IAS

Telangana HC31 Jan 2025CC/616/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an earlier High Court order releasing 80% gratuity and permitting leave encashment to a retiring GHMC employee and requiring disciplinary proceedings to conclude within two months. Finding over a year's delay and no extension application filed, the court directed compliance within 15 days, failing which a cost of Rs.20,000 was imposed, with compliance

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to comply with order dated 12.09.2023 in W.P.No.25255 of 2023 within 15 days, failing which to pay Rs.20,000 costs; compliance report by end of March 2025.

N. Kamalamma Vs Sri.M.Dana Kishore, IAS — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

1321s 1

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE THIRry FIRST DAY OF^JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{T.MADHAVIDEVI}

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 616 OF²⁰²⁴

¶7

contempt case field Under section^{10 & 12 of Contemptof courtact to punishthe} respondents herein for willfully and^{Disobeying/ Deliberately/violating the orders of} the High Court dated: 12.09.2023^{passed an. W.PNo 25255 of 2023.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

N. Kamalamma, Wio Late Babulal, Aged about^{61 years, Kamaton,Emp. No.} 2354,\Nard 48, Health Section, Circle 14, GHMC,^{Hyderabad R/o House Number} 18-313119, Behind OId Police Station, Chatrinaka,^Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Sri.M.Dana Kishore, lAS, Princi pal Secretary to Government, tvlunicipal Administration and Urban Deve iopment Department, Secretariat,T.S. Hyderabad.

¶13

Sr D.Ronald Rose, lAS, Greater Hyderabad^Municipal Corporation,Commissioner,Tank^{BundRoad, Hyderabad}

¶14

Ms. P. Madhavi, Accountant General,^{T.S.,Hyderabad}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl.^{D SUDHARSHAN}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No 1: GP FOR SERVICES^I

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No 2 to 4:^{THOODI CHANDRASEKHAR RAO}

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'OURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. IVI{DH,.\'I DEVI

¶21

(]ONTEMPT CASE No.6l6 OF 2024

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

'i'he Corrrerrpt Case is filed seeking punishmer t to the respondenl:; uncrer Sections l0 to l2 of the Contemp: of C,rut Act, for wilful anrl t'anton flouting of the orders of r.his (_-orrrt dated 12.09.202] passcd in W.p.No.25255 of 2023 and t,: pas:; such other order or order-s.

¶24

This Cou:r. vide order dated 12.09.2023 in^,W.p,Irlo. 1-5255 of 2023, directed tlu: respondents to release g0% of the gratuity and also permit thc. petitioner to withdraw leave encashntent es per her eligibititl,. nro'i,led rhere are no other charges against th,: Iretitioner and the respond:.rts were also directed to conclude the disr;iplinary proceedines agarrrsr the petitioner expeditiously, pre,ferably within a period of tivo months from the date of receipt of a c,tpy o.l tlre order. Alleging non-cor:pliance of the said order, t}re present Conren rpt Case has been filcd.

¶25

Respondent No.2 tiled counter affidavit statirrg that afler the issuance of notic: in the contempt case, he addressr:d a lt:ttr rr dated

TMD,J CC 6't6 2024

22.08.2024 to respondent No.l/contemnor to comply with^the directions of this Court in W.P.No.25255 of 2023 i.e., to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the^petitioner, so as^to appraise the same before this Court on 13.09.2024. To the said counter, respondent No.2 has also enclosed the memo^dated 09.09.2024 issued by respondent No. I instructing him to file^an appropriate counter affidavit/appeal petition before this Court^praying for a long adjoumment, i.e., six (06) months, to conclude^the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner

¶30

However, no appiication has been filed by any of^the respondents seeking extension of time

¶31

Today, when the matter has come up for hearing,^leamed Govemment Pleader is seeking further time to^{conclude the} disciptinary proceedings against the^petitioner.

¶32

This Court finds that there is clear delay^{in compliancewiththe} directions of this Court. This Court finds that there is a lapse^{of more} than a year from the date of the order of this Court. In^{view of the} undertaking given by the leamed counsel for respondent No.1 that^the order of this Court will be complied with, this Court deems it fit^and

TMD,J cc_616 2024

-----7

proper to direct the respondent^{No.1 to complywith the direclions of} this Court within a^{periodof 15 days from the date of r':ceipt ol a copy} of this order failing^{whichrespondentNo.l-M' Dana Kislror':, lAS,} Principal Sec:retar-'r to^{Govemment, MunicipalAdminisrtral.ion&} Urban Developmert^{Department, shall pay a cost of Rs.20,000'-The} cost also shall be^{paid within a periodof 15 days thereerfterand file the}

¶38

compliance report^{lry the end of March,2025.}

¶39

With the abcve directions,^{the ContemptCase is allowed}

¶40

Pending miscellaneous^petitions, if^{any, shall alsc' stand}

¶41

dismissed.

¶42

To,

¶43

Sd/- N. CHANDRA^{SEKHAR RAO} ^^{DFPUT'REGISTRAR} //rRUE coPY// ' '--7 /\ \

¶44

i ',^{'se"'tcrNoFFlcER}

¶45

Sri.M.Dana^{Kishort:, lAS, Principal Secretary to GoUrnment'Nlur icipal}

¶46

Administration anrl^{Urban Deveiopment Department'Secretarizrt'lS'} Hyderabad.

¶47

Z. Si D.Ronatd^{Rosg, lAS, Greater Hyderabad Municipal} Corporation,Cominissioner,Tank^{Bund Road, Hyderabad'}

¶48

Sri.b.Ronald^{RoselAS, Commissioner, Greater HyderabadIVlunir:ipal} Corporation, Tank^{Bund Road, Hyderabad}

¶49

Ms. P. Madhavi,^{l*:countantGeneral, T S , Hyderabad'}

¶50

One CC to^{SRl. t) SUDHARSHAN, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶51

One CC to^{SRITOODI CHANDRASEKHARRAO,Advocate[OPIJC]}

¶52

T.TwoCCstoGPf:()RSERV|CESl,HighCourtfortheStateofTellangana' louTl

¶53

g. b.O. b.S. Section, High Court for the State of Telangana,^{Hyderraoad(for} compliance of^{the order)}

¶54

Two CD CoPies

RM/plp p \rtn

HIGH COURT

DATED:3110112025

ORDER

CC.No.616 ol 2024

l
i r.jLAN <br>i:
,.?. *s ,., ,<br>41 :
F-,.. s ,-j
#o
\t<br>ii !.t )r

¶61

CONTEMPT IS ALI,OWJI)

¶62

WITH A DIRECTIoN

¶63

fn-
2> \ >)

N. Kamalamma v. Sri.M.Dana Kishore, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Kamalamma v. Sri.M.Dana Kishore, IAS

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

Gasiganti Vikas babu Vs The State of Telangana

EerlaBiksham Vs The State of Telangana

Kadaverugu Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Baba Khadar Vali Vs Sri Ahmad Nadeem

Mohammed Baba Qureshi Vs The State of Telangana

K. Ramulu Vs State of Telangana