Telangana High Court
CC/1683/2011 of Smt. Porika Pramila Vs Dr. A.Ashok on 30 December 2011
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1683 of 2011 Between: Smt. Porika Pramila … Petitioner And Dr. A .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER,TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.1683 of 2011
Between:Smt. Porika Pramila… PetitionerAndDr. A. Ashok… RespondentCounsel for the petitioner: NoneCounsel for the respondent: AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.1683 of 2011
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.
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order, dated07.01.2011, in Writ Petition No.1251 of 2011, whereby this Court has directedthe respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner, withina period of one month from the date of receipt of the order.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is inter alia stated thatthe order of this Court was received on 14.03.2011, that thereafter the thenCollector has issued notice on 17.03.2011 fixing 26.03.2011 as the hearingdate and that hearing could not take place on that day because of theadministrative work of the Collector. It is further averred that the respondenthas taken charge as Collector on 13.04.2011 and immediately he has gotissued notices fixing 16.05.2011 as the hearing date (obviously the date16.04.2011 is wrongly mentioned). It is further stated that after hearing thecase finally, order was passed on 28.11.2011 dismissing the revision andthat the petitioner, who evaded the service of order, filed the present contemptcase on 12.12.2011. The respondent explained the delay in passing theorder.
Having regard to the fact that the respondent has complied with theorder of this Court though belatedly for which he has given his explanation,the contempt case is closed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriateremedy, if she feels aggrieved by order, dated 28.11.2011.
As a sequel, contempt application No.1084 of 2011 is disposed of asinfructuous.
____________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J