Katakam Laxma, v. Smtsantikumari, La.S

,t32521

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAO FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1258 0F 2023 Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent herein willful dtsobedience of the orders of High Court dated 01.12.2022 in W.P. No. 2591 6 of 201 9. Between:

Katakam Laxma,, D/o Late KaithaHanumanthu, W/o K. NarasingaRao, age 53 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No. 12-10-58611111 AE 1, Medibavi, SeethafalMandi, Secunderabad, Telangana State. ...PETlTIONER AND

1. SmtSantikumari, l.A.S, represented by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Telangana. Telengana Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. Sri B. Venkateshwar Rao D.F.O,, Divisional Forest Officer Jagitiala, Jagithial district. Telengana.

...CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SAI SRUTHIN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES'I The Court made the following: ORDER j

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA CONTEMPT CASE No.125a OF 2023

ORDER

Heard leamed counsel for the petiUoner and leamed Government Pleader for Services-l appearing for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner filed the present contempt case complaining the violation of the order of this Court dated 01.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.25916 of 2019.

3.

The operative portion of the said order dated O1.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.25916 of 2019 reads as under: "Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of and the official respondents in the present writ petition are directed to examine the order dated 28.04.2016 passed in O.A.No.966'of 2013 and in particular directions at para 11 of the said order (extracted above) and conduct the enquiry with regard to the relationship between the 6th respondent and late Kaitha Hanumanthu and pass necessary orders, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance to law, duly communicating the said decision to the petitioner, if not already passed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. "

.i 4.

Learned Government Pleader for Services-1 appearing for the respondents brings on record the proceedings vide Rc.No.3708/2OOB/S1 dated 09.12.2016 and contends that in pursuance of the order dated 28.O4'2016 passed in O'A'No'966 o,t ZOLZ, a detailed enquiry was conducted with regard to the relationship between 6th respondent and late K'Hanumanthu and necessary orders passed on 09.12'2016 itself and that the petitioner has to challenge the said proceedings vide Rc.No.3708/2008/51 dated 09.12.2016'

5.

Taking into consideration the contents of the paragraph No.5 of the order dated 01.12.2022 passed in W'P'No'25916 of z)tg and also the contents of the proceedings vide Rc.No.3708/2008/S1 dated 09.12.2016, this Court opines that the order of this Court dated 0l'12'2022 passed in W.P.No.25916 of 2019 had been complied with'

Accordingly, the contempt case is closed ' However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if anY, pending, shall stand closed. SD/.t. NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY REGIgTRAR v SECTION OFFICER tol. qn" 9q t9 Sl15.99,^Sruthin Rao' Advocate tgtUSLt" of Tetangana at i. iil dd.io op roi Services-I, High Court for the Hyderabad. [OUTI oo: ii. cD coP-ies \.)"- //TRUE COPY// GJP

HIGH COURT DATED:1711112023 6E S r4i4:

q vz() oo 1n,ll ttJa't lir!

'l F. ii

ORDER

4+ * t C.C.No.1258 of 2023 o Es pa.IC CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS fr