eCourtsIndia

Mohd. Arifuddin vs. Shri T.M. Krishna Babu

Final Order
Court:High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad
Judge:Hon'ble C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Case Status:Disposed
Order Date:6 Jul 2012
CNR:HBHC010048352012

AI Summary

Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order

Order Issued After Hearing

Purpose:

First Hearing

Listed On:

6 Jul 2012

Order Text

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

Contempt Case No.656 of 2012

Date: 06.07.2012

Between:

Mohd. Arifuddin … Petitioner

and

T.M. Krishna Babu, Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and another … Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. K. Arun Kumar for Mr.R.A. Achuthanand

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Nagesh Bheemapaka

The Court made the following :

Order:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 20.09.2011 in W.P.No.26182 of 2011.

In the above-mentioned order, this Court has directed the respondents herein to resume the process for taking action for removal of the unauthorized structures stated to have been raised by respondent No.3 in the writ petition, consequent on vacation of the injunction order in I.A.No.863 of 2010 in O.S.No.3830 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, he has inter alia stated that in obedience to the order of this Court passed in the writ petition, he has issued a notice under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 on 18.10.2011 and that as police force could not be provided due to Bakrid Festival, respondent No.3 in the writ petition has taken advantage of the said situation and filed a fresh suit, namely, O.S.No.2712 of 2011 and secured an order of injunction in I.A.No.691 of 2011 from the Court of the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is further stated that parawise remarks have already been furnished to the standing counsel and that steps are being taken for vacation of the said interim order.

From the above facts, which are not controverted by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately violated the order of this Court. However, it needs to be noted that even though injunction was secured by respondent No.3 more than eight months back, so far, vacate stay petition did not appear to have been filed. The respondents shall, therefore, take appropriate steps to seek vacation of the injunction order in I.A.No.691 of 2011 in O.S.No.2712 of 2011.

Subject to the above direction, the Contempt Case is closed.

(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

__________________________

6 th July, 2012 cbs

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

Contempt Case No.656 of 2012

6 th July, 2012 cbs

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order