Telangana High Court
CC/1860/2010 of V. RAJASEKHAR REDDY AND 10 OTHERS Vs MR. NARAYANA SWAMY AND 2 OTHERS on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1860 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners filed W.P.No.29616 of 2010 stating that the respondents are making efforts to prevent them from discharging the duties in sub-stations under their control. The writ petition was disposed of on 26.11.2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
ORDER:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYCONTEMPT CASE No.1860 of 2010
The petitioners filed W.P.No.29616 of 2010 stating that therespondents are making efforts to prevent them from dischargingthe duties in sub-stations under their control. The writ petition wasdisposed of on 26.11.2010 with an observation that in case therespondents propose to run the sub-station by engaging thepersons of their own choice and if the sub-stations are not beingrun either departmentally or by assigning work to the LabourContractors, the case of the petitioners shall be considered.
This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondentshave violated the orders of this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The relief, if at all was granted to the petitioner is in a verynarrow compass. It is only when the sub-stations are not runeither departmentally or through Labour Contractor, that the caseof the petitioners was directed to be considered that too if therespondents were permitted to engage the persons of theirchoice. None of these ingredients are mentioned in the affidavitfiled in support of the contempt case. Therefore, it cannot be saidthat there was any acts of contempt on the part of therespondents.
The contempt case is accordingly closed.
______________________
L.NARASIMHA
REDDY,J
Dt:31.12.2010.kdl