CC/903/2006 of N.Ayodhya Vs K.V.Suresh Babu, on 31 December 2008

MONDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN

: PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE: V.ESWARAIAH

CONTEMPT CASE No. 903 of 2006

Between:

Sri N. Ayodhya, S/o. Sathaiah, Occ: Contractor, R/o.Anantharam Village, GundalaMandal, Nalgonda District.

.. Petitioners

AND

3.Sri V.V.V.S.N. Murthy, Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Sub-Division, Alair, Nalgonda District.Division, Alair, Nalgonda District.

4.Sri M.S. Sudhakar, Pay and Accounts Officer, Nalgonda District.

.. Respondents

To

3.Sri V.V.V.S.N. Murthy, Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Sub-Division, Alair, Nalgonda District.Division, Alair, Nalgonda District.

4.Sri M.S. Sudhakar, Pay and Accounts Officer, Nalgonda District.

WHEREAS the Petitionerherein has presented a petition to this court underSections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondentsherein under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for their willfuldisobedience of the Interim Order of this Hon`ble Court in WPMP. No. 33396 of 2005 inWP. No. 25992 of 2005, dated: 27-04-2006; AND WHEREAS this court upon hearing the arguments of Smt. Shobha, N.Advocate for the petitioner while admitting the Contempt Case and while dispensing withthe presence of the respondents for the present directed issue of notice to theRespondents herein to show cause why, in the circumstances stated in the petition andthe affidavit filed in support thereof (copies of which are annexed hereto) he should not bepunished for contempt of court; Now: Therefore you namely ;

3.Sri V.V.V.S.N. Murthy, Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Sub-Division, Alair, Nalgonda District.Division, Alair, Nalgonda District.

4.Sri M.S. Sudhakar, Pay and Accounts Officer, Nalgonda District.

BE AND HEREBY are directed to show cause on or before 12-03-2007 to which date thecase stands posted along with WP No. 25992 of 2006 as to why in the circumstancesstated in the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, you should not be punishedfor contempt of court ; And the Court further made the following ORDER:

“Since the counter affidavit has been filed stating that they are taking steps to place theissue before the Standing Committees concerned to take appropriate action and alsothrowing blame on the then in-charge Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nalgonda. There is no dispute with regard to the execution of the work and submission of thebills. If there are any lapses on the part of the then In-charge Chief Executive Officer, ZillaParishad, Nalgonda, or the petitioner, who has executed the works, the 1[st] respondentshall file an additional counter with regard to the steps taken by him to resolve the disputein question. However, their appearance is dispensed with for the present.

Post this Contempt Case along with WP. No. 25992 of 2006 on 12-03- 2007”.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

To