Telangana High Court
CC/1944/2012 of S.Rama Devi, Vs Sri A.K.Khan, on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1944 of 2012 Dated 28.12.2012 Between: S.Rama Devi …Petitioner and Vice Chairman and Managing Director and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Rama Devi Counsel for respondents: Sri K.Srinivasa Rao,
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYCONTEMPT CASE No.1944 of 2012Dated 28.12.2012Between:S.Rama Devi …PetitionerandVice Chairman and Managing Director and others …RespondentsCounsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Rama DeviCounsel for respondents: SriK.Srinivasa Rao, standing counselforAPSRTCThe 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 respondents in complying with the order dated12.09.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.28510 of 2012.
The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.28510 of 2012 filedby her was that her claim for payment of Rs.15,89,937.80ps towardsincreased rates of HSD oil in respect of her hired bus bearing No.AP 24 U 4546 plied on the route from Khammam –Thummagudem/Chinthapally was rejected without properopportunity. Even though the writ petition was earlier dismissed, inview of the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by a Division Bench ofthis Court in W.A.No.991 of 2012, the same was later allowed, byorder dated 12.09.2012 by setting aside the order dated 23.08.2010of respondent No.2 and remitting the matter to him with a direction tohim to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and passa reasoned order. Alleging that the said order has not beencomplied with, the petitioner filed this contempt case.
At the hearing, Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned standing counselfor Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation(A.P.S.R.T.C.) appearing for the respondents, placed before theCourt a copy of the proceedings dated 22.12.2012 of respondentNo.2, whereunder the claim of the petitioner was considered anddiscussed in detail and has been rejected.
By issuing the abovementioned proceedings, respondentNo.2 has complied with the order of this Court.
Hence, the Contempt Case is dismissed with liberty to thepetitioner to avail appropriate remedy if she feels aggrieved by theabovementioned proceedings dated 22.12.2012 of respondentNo.2.
________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY, J
28[th ]December, 2012 GHN