Disposed

N.Kalpana v. Sri K.v.v.Setharam

Telangana HC11 Jul 2025CC/762/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging violation of a writ order requiring revenue authorities to follow due process regarding regularization of land. Counsel for the contemnor did not dispute compliance; the court directed the respondent to follow due process under law and closed the contempt case.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to follow due process under law; contempt case closed, no costs.

N.Kalpana Vs Sri K.v.v.Setharam — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 762 OF 2025

¶7

contempt case fired Under sections 10 to r2 of contempt of cou(s Act, 1^971 to punish the respondents herein for willfully and deliberaiely violating the orders of the High court dated osloztzo2s passed in w.p.No. z64}'of 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

!.[r]prlr.,^{WO N.l/ahesh aged about 40 years. House} wife, R/o. H.No.3g_ 1519211, Vinobha Nagar, Shiv Nagar, Neredmet, Malkajgiri tvtanoat tvteocnit Malkalgiri District Pr6senily.residing gt ltNo.jZ-'g5,izdiZ, tttiaiir" Nigr., Neredmet, Malkajgiri Mandil Medcha-l -Malkajgiri District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri.K V.V.Setharam, Son of and age not known to the petitioner, Occ. Tahsildar Office Of The Tahsildar^-Malkajgiri Mandat, District MedchalMalkajgiri

¶13

...CONTEMNOR

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. CH SHASHI BHUSHAN

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI \ANDA

¶18

CONTEMPT CASE No.762 0F 20ili rn W.P.No.2648 of 2025

¶19

ORD ER:

¶20

Heard Sri Ch.Shashi Bhushan, lear red counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner anrl the learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue rppearing on

¶21

behalf of the respondent.

¶22

2, The contempt case is filed complaining I i )lation oF the orders of this Court dated 05.02.2025 passed in rA.p.No.2648 of 2025.

¶23

Perused the record.

¶24

4 The relevant oortion of the order date! 05.o2.2 025 oassed in W.P ,No .2648 ol 2O25 is extracted hl reunder:

¶25

The Apex Court in the Judgment reJ r rted in 2OZ2 Livelaw 570 in between Dilip (dead) through LRs \ s. Satish and others passed in CRLA No.810 of 2O22 (arisinq r ut of Special Leave petition (CRL)No.8917 of 2019), datec 13.O5.2022 observed as u nder:

¶26

"It is not dlsputed that applicant No.1 ha,; obtained the connection of electricity. The submissions ma j : show that

¶27

sN,'' C.C-No-762 2O25

¶28

applicant No. 1 is in possession of the shop and he is running a saloon shop- It is clear that he needs electricity for doing this business, but the first informant was not giving no objection certificate. He took every step to see that applicant No. 1 does not get supply of electricity for his business. It is not the case of the Applicant No. 1 that as per the agreement between him and landlord, the landlord is bound to supply the electricity. Further, the Electricity Board seeks no objection of landlord only to verify that the possession of the tenant is authorized. There is no other purpose behind obtaining such no objection from landlord. The landlord cannot prevent the tenant from availing such facility at his own cost.

¶29

It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examjne is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. Be that as it may, the High Court clearly fell in error in quashing the FIR. It cannot be said that fabrication and/or creation of records and/or forging a signature does not constitute an offence under the Indian penal Code. The High Court completely overlooked the definition of cheating in Section 415 of the IPC. It is however made clear that electricity supply granted, shall not be discontinued, subject to compliance by the Respondents of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity by the electricity department including payment of charges for the same."

¶30

Taking into consideration:

¶31

a) The submissions made by the learned counsel

sN,) :.C.No.762-2025

I \ ) )

I I

appearing^{on behalf of the petition.er} 319^h"learned 3lJnaing-counsel^{appeiring on behalf of ther respondent} Nos.l to^{4 and,}

¶36

b) The view^{of the Apex Court in th e judgments} and extracted^{above) and a(li inenlisted} (referred to below,

¶37

i) "K.C.Ninan^{Vs. KeralaState of Elect'icityBoard} and others"

¶38

ii) "Chandu^{KhamaruVs' Nayan Malikarr I others"}

¶39

iii)"Dilip^{(dead)throughLRs Vs' Sat'she nd others"}

¶40

The fact^{as borne on recordthat petilirner applied} c) for regularization^{of the subiectproperty lnpayment} basis as^{per G.o.Ms.No.S9 dated go'12'2o I' tby paying} requisite^{amount and the same is pending< onsideration} as on date^{bY the Government,}

¶41

The fact that^{even if state is the ovr ter' the due} d) procedure as^{per law cannot be ignored'and due process} oflawneedstobenecessarilyfollowed,Theivritpetition is allowed^{and the impugned proceedingsn r 'ADE/OP/AS} Rao Nagar/F.No.Land^{Dispute D'No'441"4'25dated} 1o.O1.2025^{is set aside and the rispondenl:are directed} to follow^{due process of law' However' ther r shall be no} order as to^costs.

¶42

The learned^{counsel appearing on behalf ()1 the petitioner} submits that^{the contemptcase couldbe closer directingthe} respondent^{herein, who is 5th respondentin the\ /'P'No'2648of} 2025 to^{follow due procedure under law'}

¶43

.:"^{;\ _ 2+} - -<..i<+*:.-,r.i+-

sN,l C.C.No.762 2OZs

--^*=

\ \

6 The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behatf of the respondent does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner.

¶49

7. Takinq tnto onsi erati on

¶50

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

¶51

case.

¶52

(b) The submissions put-forth by the learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the sole respondent in the present Contempt Case is directed to follow due process under law. Accordingly, the contempt case is crosed. However, there shail be no order as to costs.

¶53

closed.

¶54

¶55

Sd/- NAYANI C ANDRA SEKHA R RAO DEPUTY REGI STRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

¶56

¶57

To,

¶58

One CC to SRI CH SHASHI BHUSHAN Advocate tOpUCl 2. Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE , High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶59

¶60

Two CD Copies

C;R/PSL

L*.t*,

{ I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110712025

ORDER

CC.No.762 ot 2025

a
a o
/i
a (1'
a
!l ,.) B J L
2[h
ti'

¶69

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

¶70

l-
A 1'.<br>

N.Kalpana v. Sri K.v.v.Setharam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Kalpana v. Sri K.v.v.Setharam

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

T. Sampath, Vs The State of Telangana

Kalyani Kumari Vs The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

K. Gangadar Vs The Presiding Officer , Labour Court-Ii and another

kommu prasad Vs Sri. T.Sudhakar

Smt Mahankala Shanthavva. Vs Sri Srinivas Reddy

Kolli Yadagiri Reddy Vs Shri. T. Vinay Krishna Reddy IAS