← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCC/41/2016closed no costs

Raja Venkataramanaiah, v. Ramanjaneyalu,

2016-02-17P Naveen Rao3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH **** HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO. 41 OF 2016 Between:

Raja Venkataramanaiah S/o Hazarat Setty ....Petitioner A n d Ramanjaneyalu, District Panchayat Officer, Nellore District and one another ....Respondents

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO. 41 OF 2016 ORDER:

The Writ Petition was disposed of directing the District Panchayat Officer, Nellore to consider the grievance of the petitioner with reference to the construction of a dustbin. The second respondent was directed to cause enquiry on the grievance after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders.

2. Alleging that the said order is not complied with, this Contempt Case is filed.

3. First respondent filed a counter affidavit. Along with the counter affidavit, proceedings dated 11.2.2016 of the first respondent are enclosed. A reading of the proceedings dated 11.2.2016 would show that a report was obtained from the Gram Panchayat and it is the categorical assessment of the Gram Panchayat that they have not undertaken any construction of dustbin as alleged by the petitioner and no funds are sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat for the said purpose.

It is thus clear that the Gram Panchayat disown the construction of dustbin. According to the order dated 11.2.2016 a private person constructed the dustbin in his property and there is a civil litigation pending between the petitioner and the said person.

4. As seen from the proceedings dated 11.2.2016 of the first respondent, as directed by this Court the matter was considered and appropriate orders were passed. Thus, I do not see any justification to continue the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.

5. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. In view of the categorical stand by the Gram Panchayat, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available under law. It is also open to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings dated 11.2.2016 of the first respondent.

______________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 17.2.2016 KA