Sri P.Sampath v. Shri M.R.M. Rao And 2 Others
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CAS NO: 549 OF 2020 contempt case filed under sections 1o to 12 of Contempt of courts Act 1971 to summon the respondents herein and punish them for willful violation of the orders dated 21 .08.2019 in W P No 10359 of 2019 Between:
Sri P.Sampath, Aged about 64 yrs, R/o.H No'3-9-407/1 , Reddy Colony' Hanamkonda, Warangal District .....PETITIONER AND l.ShriM.R.M.RaoTheTranportCommissioner,TranportBhavan,Khairtabad, Hyderabad 500004
2. P. Ravinder, The Regional Transport Authority, Rep by its Secretary' Uppal' IVedichal District.
3. B. Srinivas, Lisencing officer, Asst Secretary to RTA Uppal, Medichal District ...., RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased permit to file to file leave to file contempt case against the Respondent.No3 who is not a party the W.P No 10359 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V SRIKANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT (TG) The Court made the following: ORDER }
(L / THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.549 OF 2o20
ORDER
While disposing of Writ Petition No.10359 of 2019, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file application within one week from the date of receipt of copy of that order with supporting documents seeking exemption from payment of tax as demanded by the Regional Transport Officer. On due consideration of the explanation, the competent authority was directed to pass orders as warranted by law. Till decision is made, respondents were directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner. Alleging said orders are violated, this Contempt is filed. 2.
Though even before contempt is filed, orders were passed on 25.O9.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that said order was passed by the Regional Transport Officer, whereas he is not party to the writ petition and he could not have passed such order. There is no specilrc averment on how learned counsel for the petitioner is contending on lack of competence of the Regional Transport Officer to enable the respondents to reply on allegation of competence. Court has not specified who should pass order. The Court specifically directed the competent authority to take a decision. No material is placed on record to show that the Regional Transport Oflicer is not competent to pass the order. Further aggrieved by the order of rejection, petitioner frled WP.No.4406 of 2O2O and said writ petition is pending. Since the order is already passed even before contempt is filed and the same is subject
-) matter of challenge in pending writ petition' this Contempt Case is closed. Pending miscellaneous petitions' if any' shall stand closed' SD/- CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR \1-.-- SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY'
To, Shri M.R.M. Rao Tranport Commissioner' Tranport Bhavan' Khairtabad' Hyderabad 500004 2.P.Ravinder,RegionalTransportAuthority'RepbyitsSecretary'Uppal'Medichal District 3.B.srinivas,Lisencingofficer,AsstsecretarytoRTAUppal'MedichalDistrict'
4. One CC to Sri. V srikantha Rao, Advocate tOPUCI
5. Two CCs to GP for Transport (TG)' High Court for the state of Telangana [OUT] \ v
6. Two CD CoPies
7. One SPare CoPY TP
HIGH COURT DATED: 1110612021 r€ T s e ( e oo 13 lut 2021 ?- .L
ORDER
CC.No.549 of 2020 f.) CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE J,4