← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCC/637/2016closed no costs

Nethanna, v. Smt. Sridevi,

2017-06-02Sanjay Kumar,M.Seetharama Murti2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI CONTEMPT CASE NO.637 OF 2016

O R D E R

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This contempt case was instituted alleging willful disobedience to the order dated 24.04.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12243 of 2015. By the said order, this Court required the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar, to enquire into the allegation that mining operations were being conducted by the 10th respondent in the writ petition without having any licence or authority, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also the 10th respondent. A decision in the matter was to be taken within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Alleging that the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar, the 4th respondent in the writ petition, failed to abide by the aforestated order, this contempt case was instituted.

The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar, filed a counter affidavit on 07.09.2016 asserting that the order passed by this Court was duly complied with and upon enquiry, it was found that the 10th respondent in the writ petition had nothing to do with the mining operations being carried out. The quarrying and stone-crushing operations were attributable to one Srinivasa Civil Works Private Limited and orders were passed by the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology (Vigilance), Jadcherla, for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,21,350/- from the said concern under Rule 26(2) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.

Sri Ravishankar Jandhyala, learned counsel for the petitioners, would state that in the light of the aforestated counter asserting to the effect that the 10th respondent in the writ petition had nothing to do with the mining operations in question, the contempt case may be closed leaving it open to the petitioners to approach this Court in the event cause arises in future.

The contempt case is accordingly closed with the liberty aforestated. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J _____________________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J 2nd JUNE, 2017 Svv