Telangana High Court
CC/1776/2016 of Garlapati Raju, Vs N. Geetha Reddy, on 30 December 2016
SRI JUSTICE C. KODANDA RAM CONTEMPT CASE No.1776 of 2016 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 28.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.13422 of 2016 wherein the petitioner shall be allowed to run the business in the premises on condition of petitioner paying
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 non-compliance of the order dated 28.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.13422 of 2016 wherein the petitioner shall be allowed to run the business in the premises on condition of petitioner paying a sum of Rs.10,000/ -. However, for the purpose of redevelopment if the petitioner is required to vacate the premises, the respondent shall give one week notice and the petitioner undertakes to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the 4[th] respondent – Executive Officer, Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. It is made clear the petitioner shall be asked to vacate the premises only when the similarly situated shop owners are being asked to vacate. In the meanwhile, the representations filed by the petitioner on 11.01.2014 and 20.01.2014 shall be considered and disposed of.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it was categorically asserted that for the purpose of renovation and development works near Rajagopuram Veedhi at uphills of Yadagairigutta, the petitioner was allotted Shop No.104 in new Shopping Complex, allotted to the Union. In other words, the order has been complied with.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he is being asked to pay certain other amounts in the name of arrears. The same not being part of the present contempt petition, and hence this Court is not inclined to comment on the same in any manner. It is always open for the petitioner to work out his remedies as available in law.
In those circumstances, the Contempt Case is closed granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available in law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Contempt Case shall stand closed.
__________________
C. KODANDA RAM,J