Akshay Agritech (A Propriety Concern), v. Smt. D.Bramaramba,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.762 OF 2016 DATED:08-07-2016 Between:

Akshay Agritech (A proprietary concern) Plot No.138, Ground Floor, Srikrupa Market, Malakpet, Hyderabad Telangana State Rep. by its Proprietor - Akshay Mittal ... Petitioner And Smt. D. Bhramaramba Executive Officer Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam Srikalahasti Chittoor District ... Respondent COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. M. Vidyasagar COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. A. Sreekanth Reddy, Standing Counsel for Endowments

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER:

This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dt.7.1.2016 in W.P. No.795 of 2016.

By order dt.3.6.2016 this Court has admitted the contempt case. On 01.7.2016 the respondent has personally appeared and failed to convince this Court that her conduct in placing the indent on M/s. Sumathi Traders, which was one of the tenderers under the notification impugned in the writ petition, did not constitute violation of the order of this Court. Therefore, the counsel for the respondent has requested for adjournment for taking corrective steps. Accordingly, the case was adjourned from 01.7.2016 to 08.7.2016.

The respondent has filed an affidavit sworn to on 06.7.2016 wherein she has admitted the mistake in placing the above mentioned indent on M/s. Sumathi Traders and tendered unconditional apology. She has further stated that further indent will not be placed to the said Sumati Traders pending further orders in the writ petition. The respondent, who is personally present, has clarified that she has placed indent on M/s. Sumati Traders for the month of June, 2016 and hereafter she will get supplies from M/s. Vinayaka Traders, which was the pre-existing tenderer, till further orders are passed in the writ petition or a fresh notification, if any, is issued and tenders are finalized in response thereto.

In the light of the above noted averments in the affidavit, this Court is satisfied that the respondent has purged the contempt and accordingly accepting the unconditional apology tendered by her, the contempt case is closed.

__________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08-07-2016 bnr