Telangana High Court
CC/1920/2012 of Mamidipalli Geetha Bhavana, Vs Sri. N. Siva Sankar (1.A.S) on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1920 of 2012 Dated 28.12.2012 Between: Mamidipalli Geetha Bhavana …Petitioner and N.Siva Sankar …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Lakshman Rao Counsel for respondent: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.1920 of 2012
Dated 28.12.2012Between:Mamidipalli Geetha Bhavana …PetitionerandN.Siva Sankar …RespondentCounsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Lakshman RaoCounsel for respondent: --The Court made the following:
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 onthe part of the respondent in complying with the order dated03.07.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19861 of 2012.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the respondent. However, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andperused the record.
By the abovementioned order, this Court has disposed of thewrit petition filed by the petitioner directing the respondent toconsider the petitioner’s representation in the light of the reportsubmitted by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and theRules in force relating to alteration of date of entry in the SecondarySchool Certificate within one month from the date of receipt of theorder. Alleging that the said order was not complied with, thepetitioner filed this contempt case.
In obedience to the notice issued in this contempt case, therespondent filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated thatthe request of the petitioner for alteration of date of birth wasdisposed of by the respondent, vide his proceedings dated06.12.2012 and that the petitioner’s claim was rejected on theground that the same was belated. The learned counsel for thepetitioner has submitted that his client has no knowledge of passingof the said order as a copy of the same was not communicated toher.
Inasmuch as the respondent has disposed of the petitioner’s representation, I do not find any reason to hold that the respondenthas violated the order of this Court. Even if the petitioner is notcommunicated with the order, since a copy of the said order isenclosed to the counter-affidavit, she shall be free to question thesame by availing the appropriate remedy, if she feels aggrieved bythe said order passed by the respondent.
Subject to the liberty given as above, the Contempt Case isdismissed.
As a sequel, C.A.No.1136 of 2012 shall stand disposed of asinfructuous.
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY, J
28[th ]December, 2012 GHN