← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCC/881/2017closed no costs

Sk.Sharfoddin, Medak Dist v. K. Kumara Swamy, Medak Dist

2018-04-04Challa Kodanda Ram2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CONTEMPT CASE No.881 of 2017 ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliance of the order, dated 06.04.2017, passed by this Court in WPMP.No.14936 of 2017 in Writ Petition No.11997 of 2017, suspending the impugned notice on condition of the petitioner paying 25% of the demanded amount.

Respondent issued notice, dated 20.02.2017, which is impugned in the aforesaid Writ Petition, to the petitioner demanding him to pay the amount mentioned therein towards property tax.

On 13.12.2017, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order of this Court has been complied with but learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the same. In the circumstances, this Court directed the respondent to file a counter-affidavit specifying details as to the compliance of the order of this Court. In pursuance of the same, on 04.01.2018, the respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, on receipt of certain amount from the petitioner towards dues of property tax, the locks put up in respect of the two shops were removed and

that the Municipality never insisted the petitioner to pay the tax as demanded in the notice impugned in the Writ Petition. In response to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit before this Court on 22.02.2018 specifically asserting that the lock of his third shop is not yet removed by the respondent.

On the last occasion, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had locked only two shops of the petitioner and the petitioner himself had locked the third shop. In view of such submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court expressed its view that the petitioner himself may remove the lock of the third shop, as there is no requirement to seek any permission from the respondent in respect thereto.

Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has removed the lock of the third shop and is using the same.

In those circumstances and in view of compliance of the order of this Court by the respondent, the Contempt Case is closed.

_________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 4th APRIL, 2018.

kvni