Paidimalla Shobha Rani v. Sri. D.Venkaiah

[ 3230 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWEN'TY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 723 OF 2023 Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 197.1 to punish the respondents herein for willful disobedience and non-compliance of the Order of the Hon'ble Court dated 16.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.44993 of 2O22. Between:

Paidimalla Shobha Rani, Wo. Anil Kumar, aged 39 years, Occ. Housewife, H.No. 2-65l'l, Mulugu Town, Mulugu Mandal and District. ...PETITIONER AND

1. Sri. D.Venkaiah, District Panchayat Officer, Mulugu District. (CC closed against R1 as per court order dt. l6.06.2023 in CC 123 of 2023)

2. Sri, S.Mahender, Executive Officer, Mulugu Gram Panchayat, Mulugu District. ...CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA Counsel for Respondent No.1 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri R. CHANORA SHEKAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITIIA KA.TWDGANTI I CONTEM PT CASE No.723 of2o23 ORDER:

I t IIII This Court by order dated 16.12.2O22 disposed of Writ Petition No. 44993 of 2022 directing the official I I respondents to consider the petitioner,s representation dated i 28.10.2022. It is the case o[ the petitioner that the unofficial i respondents without obtaining any permission are going ahead with the construction. The present Contempt Case is filed stating that the respondents have not acted upon the order passed by this Court.

2.

A counter-affidavit is filed stating that permission was granted in favour of the unofficial respondents on ot.o9.2020.

3.

In response to that, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are making wrong It is stated that in respect of the statement before this Court.

very same issue, when the Mandal Panchayat Oflicer has submitted a representation to the Additional Collector, Mulugu District dated 24.04.2023, they have not mentioned about the said permission granted in favour of the unofficial respondents. It is stated that only u,ith an intention to get over this contempt, they have come up with such a plea.

4.

This Court has directed the re spondents to consider the representation and take action on the illegal construction. According to the respondents, that is not the illegal construction and permission was granted. It is the case of the petitioner that proceedings dated 24.04.2023 also do not reflect the said permission, according to them, it is placed before this Court for the purpose of contempt. This Court is not inclined to go into all those issues as it is stated by the respondents that the unofficial respondents obtained permission, as such, there is no violation of the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 44993 of 2022. lt the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the actions of the respondents, he is at liberty to move an appropriate Application. 5.

The Contempt Case is accordingly, dismissed.

6.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.

Sd/- CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6D SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to Sri R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies NJB kam Prtc,.

HIGH COURT DATED:3010612023 5TATE + :)r) r) 2B ruB lm o +^ * r,-

ORDER

-4, CC.No.723 ot 2O23 DISMISSING THE CONTEMPT CASE ffte.

\.^\8\oZ'