High Court for State of TelanganaCC/1330/2015closed no costs

Padagala Srinu v. Smt. K.S Umathi Bai

2015-08-14C.Praveen Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * Contempt Case No.1330 OF 2015 Between:

Padagala Srinu.

.. Petitioner And Smt.K.Sumathi Bai.

.. Respondent DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 14-08-2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Contempt Case No.1330 of 2015 ORDER:

This contempt case was filed alleging wilful disobedience to the order dated 17.06.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.21524 of 2015 in W.P.No.16573 of 2015. By the said order, this Court directed the Tahsildar, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, to complete the enquiry initiated as per the order dated 22.11.2014 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam (RDO), before 08.07.2015. This Court further directed that due opportunity of hearing should be given to all the interested parties as directed by the RDO. It is now stated that pursuant to the aforestated order, the Tahsildar, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, completed the enquiry and issued proceedings in Rc.No.77/2014-SA dated 06.07.2015.

Sri A.Jagan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would however contend that a proper enquiry was not conducted and that the findings recorded in the proceedings dated 06.07.2015 were not established on facts. However, this Court cannot undertake an examination of the proceedings dated 06.07.2015 on merits in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. In the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the said proceedings, it is for him to assail the same by way of independent proceedings in accordance with law. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to do so, the contempt case is closed. No order as to costs.

________________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:14.08.2015 GJ