Mr. Chintala Kumar Yadav, v. K.Illambarithi, Ias,

t 3166 I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No: 1194 ot 2024 Petition under Sections 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the Respondent herein for committing for the wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 23-04-2024 passed by Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition(WP) No. 7 l 32 of 2024.

Between:

Mr. Chintala Kumar Yadav, S/o. Chintala Shiva Kumar Yadav, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-5311312. Near Kalajyothi Press, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District.

...Petitioner

AND K.lllambarithi, lAS, Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, GHMC Circle-20, Ranga Reddy District.

(Respondent name amended as per the Court Order dated .22-11-2024 in lA No.1 of 2024 in CC No'1 194 of 2024).

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Saini Aravind Counsel for the Respondent: Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the fotlowing: OROER L

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Contem Case No,1194 of 2024 ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience and noncompliance of the order of this Court dt.23.04.2024 in W.P.No.7132 of 2024.

2.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Saini Aravind, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G,Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, would submit that the authorities have removed/demolished the unauthorized and illegal construction on tt.t7.2024.

3.

Learned Standing Counsel, by stating as above, has also placed before this Court four photographs taken on A4 sheet showing the authorities undertaking demolition of the unauthorized construction made in terms of the Speaking Order dt.10.04.2024 passed. 4.

In view of the submission made as above, since, the authorities have now taken action for enforcing the Speaking Order, no further orders are necessary to be passed in this Contempt Case. 5.

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. 6.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this contempt case shall nd los s SD/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR t )tt]| t |'l'i SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, I a One CC to Sri Saini Aravind Advocate TOPUC] - ^ .- . O." CC to Sri G. tr4adhusudhan Reddy, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies Karn/l'S[, ,/ ,/ I I

/t HIGH COURT DATED:281021202s ( I S f '1 r€

ORDER

2[25 J o Itl CC.No.1194 ot 2024 t 9r) c o CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPT CASE /4 , ,/r5