Telangana High Court
CC/1291/2011 of SMS Oriental High School, Rep. by its Correspondent Vs Mr. N.Siva Sankar, 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.1291 of 2011 Between: SMS Oriental High School Nellore District. …
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.1291 of 2011
Between:SMS Oriental High SchoolNellore District.
… Petitioner
AndMr. N. Siva Sankar,Director of School Education,Hyderabad.… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None Counsel for the respondent: GP for School Education This Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.1291 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,dated 09.07.2010, in Writ Petition No.14491 of 2003.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Ihave heard the learned Government Pleader for School Education. SriN. Siva Sankar, the Director of School Education, is personallypresent.
This Court, by order, dated 09.07.2010, in Writ Petition No.14491of 2003 while setting aside proceedings, dated 13.06.2003, of theDirector of School Education after holding that clause 7(6) ofG.O.Ms.No.75, dated 23.09.2002, is in direct conflict with Rule 12(8) ofthe A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition,Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements)Rules 1993 (for short, “the Rules”) directed the respondent to considerthe proposals afresh keeping in view sub-rule (8) of Rule 12 of theRules and in the light of the recommendations made by respondentNo.3 in the Writ Petition. As no order was passed, as directed by thisCourt, the present contempt case is filed.
When the contempt case came up before this Court, it wasreported that an order was passed rejecting the petitioner’s objections. However, on a perusal of the said order, it was prima facie felt that thesame is in violation of the order of this Court. The respondent waspresent on 25.11.2011 as per the direction issued by this Court on28.10.2011 on admitting the contempt case. He has requested for anadjournment for taking corrective steps. Accordingly, the contempt case was adjourned. Today, the respondent is again personallypresent and has placed before the Court proceedingsRc.No.2045/S2/2002, dated 29.12.2011, wherein he has reconsideredthe earlier decision and accorded permission for the unaided postsmentioned in paragraph 1 of the said proceedings with effect from theyear 1995-96 without aid.
In the light of the corrective steps taken by the respondent, I donot find the necessity of continuing the contempt proceedings anylonger. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed and the respondentis discharged from the contempt proceedings.
____________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J