Kaddoori Mukesh v. Smt. D. Usha

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 652 OF 2021 Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the respondent herein for willfully violating the Order of the High Court dated 03-02-2021 passed in W.P.No. 2257 ot 2021 Between:

Kaddoori Mukesh, S/o. Late Kaddoori Yakanadham, aged 20 years, R/o Burhanpally (Village) Rayaparthy (lVandal), Warangal Rural District. ,.PETITIONERY PETITIONER AND Smt. D. Usha, W/o. not known to the petitioner, The District Agriculture Officer, Warangal Rural District, Hanamkonda.

... PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT NO.3 Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. M MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR AGRICULTURE (TG) The Court made the following: ORDER

,'!

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEM PTCASENo.652 of2O2l ORDER:

Alleging that order of this Court in W.P.No.2257 of 2O2l dated O3.02.202 1 is not complied, this contempt case is filed. 2.

Taking note of the submissions made, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the District Agriculture Officer to look into the date of birth issue of petitioner's father late Yakanadham as on the date of enrollment into the scheme and if what was contended by the petitioner was genuine and wrong date of birth was shown in the subsequent Aadhar Card, appropriate steps be taken to grant the benefits of the scheme to the family members of late Yakanadham. This Court also directed the District Agriculture { , Offrcer to verify whether policy was in force as on the date of death of Yakanadham.

3.

By Memo dated 27.03.2021, the District Agriculture Officer informed the petitioner that while uploading the claim, it was noticed that as per UIDAI portal, his father age was shown as 70-80 years and as verified by the LlC, the age reflected was more than 60 years and the LlC returned the claim. It appears, the petitioner also informed the District Agriculture Officer that his father has taken fresh/ duplicate Aadhar Card, where the date of birth was sho.a'n as 20.O3.1949 and taking note of these facts, his request was rejected.

4.

If what was noted by the District Agriculture Of{icer on statement of the petitioner or on entries made in UIDAI portal is

-3 not true, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies and establish that his father was eligible to be enrolled in the Rythu Bhima Scheme and therefore, he is entitled to receive the claim amount granted to his late father as per the policy. 5.

Since a decision is already made assigning reasons, it cannot be said that there was violation of the directions of this Court warranting initiation of contempt proceedings. 5.

The contempt case is accordingly closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the remedies as available in 1aw against the decision taken by the District Agriculture Officer. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/-C.V.ALLIKARJUNA VARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR \t .- '\ / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Smt.D.USha,W/o.notknowntothepetitioner'TheDistrictAgricultureofficer, Wliuigrl Rriul District, Hanamkonda'

One CC to SRI M MADHAVA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] TwoCCstoGPFoRAGRICULTURE(TG),HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUT] J

4. Two CD CoPies

5. One SPare CoPY CDL TR

HIGH COURT DATED:0511112A21

ORDER

CC.No.652 ot 2021 9 5TAr4.

\-l ( zo q oo 04 DECzofl J.'

* \."9 \ ,o rk D S Ct-OSING THE CO\TE\4P]' CASI] NO COSTS )," V