Telangana High Court
CC/579/2012 of Shaik Kalesha Vs Smt. Neetu Kumari Prasad, on 28 December 2012
Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 579 of 2012 Dated: 28.12.2012 Between: Shaik Kalesja … Petitioner AND Smt.Neetu Kumari Prasad and another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 579 of 2012 ORDER: This court disposed of W.P.No.26611 of
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.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CONTEMPT CASE No. 579 of 2012
Dated: 28.12.2012
Between:
Shaik Kalesja … Petitioner
AND
Smt.Neetu Kumari Prasad and another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CONTEMPT CASE No. 579 of 2012
ORDER:
This court disposed of W.P.No.26611 of 2011 with the followingdirections:
“In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed ofwith a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer,Kakinada to submit his remarks, if not already submittedwithin four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of thisorder. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent shall passappropriate orders following due process of law withineight (8) weeks thereafter. The Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Kakinada is made as a respondent to this writpetition suo motu. Let this order be communicated to theRevenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada also. No costs.
This contempt case was filed on 18.4.2012 alleging that therespondents failed to comply with the order of this court and therefore, they are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of CourtsAct.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,Kakinada stating that a report was submitted to the District Collector on20.7.2012 with the record of enquiry and thereafter, the District Collector,East Godavari District, Kakinada issued proceedings dated 10.08.2012 asdirected by this court. It is also stated that the delay in compliance with theorder of this Court is only for administrative reasons and unconditionalapology has been tendered for the delay.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that asper the direction of this court in W.P.No.26611 of 2011, the DistrictCollector is bound to pass an appropriate order following due process oflaw which means that an opportunity of hearing should be given to thepetitioner before passing the order dated 10.8.2012.
While submitting that no notice was issued to the petitioner beforepassing the order dated 10.8.2012, it is contended by the learned counselfor the petitioner that the order dated 10.8.2012, cannot be held to bepassed following due process of law in compliance with the order of thiscourt. However the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point outany provision either under the A.P. (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue ofCommunity Certificates Act, 1993 or the Rules made thereunder whichprovides for notice and an opportunity of hearing to the complainant beforepassing an order for cancellation under Section 5 of the Act. As could beseen, Section 5 merely provides that if the District Collector is satisfied thatthe certificate was obtained fraudulently, the certificate shall be cancelledafter giving the person against whom the allegation is made an opportunityof making a representation.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any substance in thecontention that the action of the respondents in passing the order dated10.8.2012 without notice to the petitioner is contemptuous and therefore,they are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.
However this court shall not be understood to have expressed anyopinion as to the validity and legality of the order dated 10.8.2012 and it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the said order by working outthe appropriate remedy as available under law, if so advised.
Subject to the liberty granted above, the Contempt Case isaccordingly dismissed. No costs.
_____________
G.ROHINI, J
Date: 28.12.2012Ivd/Pab/Klp