S. Thirupathi Reddy v. Smt. Shaik Yasmeen Basha

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.2260 OF 2018 DATED :26-04-2019 Between :

S.Thirupathi Reddy S/o.Late Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 50 years, occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.10-1-86, Ramnagar, Karimnagar District.

..

Petitioner And Smt.Shaik Yasmeen Basha, Joint Collecto, Rajanna Sircilla District.

.. Respondent This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.2260 of 2018 ORDER :

WP.No.33359 of 2017 was disposed of at the admission stage by order dated 06-10-2017 directing the revisional authority to consider the revision preferred by the petitioner on 13-12-2006 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after putting on notice 6th respondent in the writ petition. The revisional authority passed orders on 07-07-2018 rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner. This Contempt Case is filed alleging that revisional authority has not passed orders within the time stipulated by the Court, holding him guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act.

02. Respondent filed counter affidavit explaining the steps taken in pursuance to the direction of this Court and reasons for delay in passing orders. According to paragraph No.2 of the said counter affidavit, after receipt of the orders from this Court notices were issued fixing date of hearing as 16-12-2017. Later adjourned to 23-12-2017. The 6th respondent in the writ petition sought time to engage counsel on her behalf. Accordingly, matter was posed on 27-01-2018. On 27-01-2018, the 6th respondent requested to provide legal aid to defend her. Accordingly, an Advocate was appointed and matter was adjourned to 07-04-2018. Counter affidavit was filed. Hearing was conducted on 05-05-2018 and orders are passed on 07-07-2018.

- 3 -

03. In regard to the direction issued by the Court i.e. to consider the revision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks after affording due opportunity and in the process of affording due opportunity to the 6th respondent in the writ petition, time was granted. In that process, delay was caused in disposing the revision. It cannot be said that said delay was deliberate and willful warranting initiation of proceedings of contempt of Court. No doubt, respondent could have filed application for extension of time. Merely because no such application was filed, in the facts of this case, respondent cannot be held as violated the orders of the Court deliberately and willfully.

04. Accordingly, contempt case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies if aggrieved by the decision of revisional authority. Pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 26-04-2019 Nvl