LPA/2/2026 of C. Narayana Reddy, IAS Vs Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin on 18 March 2026

13447 |

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

L.P.A.No: 2OF 2026

Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 20-02-2026 made in CC No.215 of 2025 on the file of the High Court.

Between:

C. Narayana Reddy, lAS, District Collector, Ranga Reddy Diskict, Kongara kalan, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

...Appellant

AND

1. Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin, S/o, Late Syed Mohammed Nayeemuddin, R/o. Pahadi Shareef, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 2 Rajesh Kumar singh, tAS, Defence s"","t"r},,'rril[iirii;:#::t i;:".1,t#; of lndia, South Block, New Delhi.

3. Anindya Biswas, Director of DRDL, Research Center lmarath (RCl), Vignan Kancha Post, Hyderabad.

4. A Santhi Kumar, lAS, Chief Secretary, The State of Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

...Respondents/Respondents

(Respondents No.2 to 4 are not necessary parties to this Appeal)

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 20.O2.026 passed in C.C No. 215 of 2025, wherein Form-ll notice was issued to the petitioner, pending disposal of the appeal.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Poftigari Sridhar Reddy, Special Government Pleader attached to Advocate General Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, senior Counsel The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

::i,r+:

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TIIE STATE OF 1' ]LANGANA

A't HYDF]RABAD

.tIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM <OSHY

AND

.IIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSII iG RAO

NANDIKONDA

L.P.A.No.2 OF 2026

r8.03.2026

Between:

B.Narayana Rcddy

Appellant

AND

Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin

and 3 others

Ilespondents

JUDGMEN'I, @er Hon'hle Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, lea;r ed Special Govemment Pleader attached to the ofhce of he leamed Advocate General for the appellant and Mr. Vetl la Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel for respondent I.l ,.1. Perused the record

2.

The instant letters patent appeal has been prc :rred against the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned S rngle Bench, seized of conternpt case i.e., C.C.No.215 of 2025.

,r,

3.

The contempt case arises out of an order passed by the leamed Single Bench in W.p.No.l1883 of 2024, decided on 04.09.2024. For non-compliance of the same, C.C.No.215 of 2025

was filcd. The contempt case was initially taken up for hearing on 3 I .01.2025, on which date the contemnors were required to show cause either in person or through their duly engaged counsel by 21.02.2025 as to why contempt should not be drawn against them. lt appears that thereafter the matter has come up for hearing on 20.02.2026 and since there was non-compliance of the original order in the writ Court, the Court has dispensed with the personal appearance of appellant/respondent No.4 and had posted the matter on 20.03.2026. On 20.03.2026, when the matter was taken up, thc learned Court was of the opinion that since on an earlier occasion the appellant had appeared, his personal presence was dispensed with and without further seeking leave of the Court, appeltant/

respondent No.4 could not have remained absent when the matter was taken up on 20.03.2026, more so, when there was no matcrial to show substantial compliance olthe order of the writ Court. The contempt Court issued direction to the Registry of the Court ibr issuancc of Form II notice which is bailabte warrant issued to the -/

- F:a 1*o.*a*>ql/

.z

/.

contemnor. 'fhe issuance of the bailable warrart is rvhat the appellant is aggricved o 1-.

4.

The leamcd counsel for the appellant submils that they do not have any drlficulty in keeping the officers pres( lt before the contempt Court in the course of hearing ol the cont: npt case, but since they were being represented by a duly ent,r qed counsel, the necessity tbr issuance of warrant was not ther:. The Court could have vcry well directed the presence of t[:: ofFrcer for proceeding further with the contempt

5.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearin., the leamed counsel represcnting respondent No.i/writ petitir rer did not express any opposition to the prayer of the State Cor rsel so far as the withdrar.val of the issuance of bailabte warrant s concemed.

However, it was the contention of the leamed Senicr (lounsel that in the said circumstances, the appellant should r: nain present before the Court concerned on the date fixed by tht l)ourt, seized of the contempt case, which again was agreeable t , the leamed counsel reprcscrrti ng the appellant

;h.

6.

Given the said factual matrix of the case and the submissions advanced by the leamed counsel for the appellant as also the leamed Senior Counsel representing respondent No.l/writ petitioner, the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 in C.C.No.215 of 2025 stands partly modified to the extent that the appellant herein, who is respondent No.4 in the contempt case, shall remain personally present before the Court concemed on 20.03.2026

where the matter is otherwise fixed and thereafter, the contempt Couft shall proceed in accordance with law.

1.

The letters patent appeal, accordingly, stands allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- M MANJULA

JOINT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To,

kam

1. One CC to Advocate General [OPUC]

2. One CC to Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, Senior Counsel [OPUC]

3. Two CD CoPies

W

i

I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1810312026

,'

,Jt