Sanqh (BMS) and Others v. Baranaoore Jute Factorv PLC. And Others, at Dara No

Sri. Srinath Reddy, S/o and Age not known to the Petitioners, Occ. Divisional Engineer (Operation), TSSPDCL, Medchal Circle, Jeedimetla Village, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. ...CONTEMNORYRESPONDENT lA NO: 'l OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to bring the representation daled 3OlO3l2O24 along with the documents relied upon by them on record. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE REP. FOR DISHIT BHATTACHARJEE Counsel for the Respondent: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY SC FOR TELANGANA TRANSCO The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA CONTEMPT c ENo .1059 0F o24 ORDE R: Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on record and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The petitioners approached the Court complaining violation of the orders of this Court, dated 3O.10.2O23 passed in W.P.No.138O of 2O23.

3. The order of this Court, dated 3O. LO.2023 assed an W.P.No.1 38O of 2O23 and the relevant oara os. 11 & 12 are extracted hereunder

11. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 clearly indicates that the objection petition/ rep rese n ta tion of the petitioners addressed to the 2nd respondent dated 02.01.2023 had not been considered at all by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 since there is no reference in the counter affidavit filed by the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the specific averment made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition that the petitioner vide Legal Notice dated 04.01.2023 requested the oFficial respondents not to give any power connection in 2 the subject property without disposal of petitioners representation/objection petition dated OZ.Ol.2023. This Court opines that the respondents proceeded and decided the application filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 seeking grant of Electricity connection in the subject property without considering the petitioners objection petition/ representation dated 02.Ol.ZO23.

12. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to give due notice and provide reasonable opportunity to both the petitioner and also the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and consider the petitioners objection petitio n/re p rese nta tion dated 02.01.2023 in accordance to law in conformity with principles of natural justice and pass a ppro priate. orders within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

4. Learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placing reliance on the material documents filed in support of I.A.No, O1 of 2023 and in particutar to the representation of the petitioner, dated 30.03.2024 addressed to the respondent-corporation which had even been acknor4rledged by the respondent corporation contends that '5' material documents had been submifted to the respondent corporation along with petitioners' detailed representation, dated 3().O3.2024 in pursuance to J orders of this Court, dated 30.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.138O of 2O23 and therefore, the proceedings, dated 21.12.2024 issued by the 2'd respondent in pursuance and in compliance of the order, dated 3O.1O.2O23 passed in W.P.No.138O of 2O23 rejecting the petationers' representation, dated 02.01.2023 by the 2nd respondent with a specific plea indicating that the petitioners did not file any supporting documents in support of petitioners'objections/ claims is contrary to record and hence, there is deliberate violation of the orders of this Court, dated 30.1O.2023 passed ln W.P.No.138O of 2O23. 5, A bare perusal of the record and the representation of the petitioners, dated 30.03.2O24 submitted by the petitioners to the respondent-corporation in pursuance to the orders of this Court, dated 3O.1O.2O23 passed in W.P.No.138O of 2023 clearly indicates that '5' documents had been submitted by the petitioners to the respondent-corporation which had even been acknowledged by the respondent corporation, but 4 however curiously the proceedings, dated ZL.LZ.2O24 issued by the 2"d respondent in compliance to the directions of this Court indicate that the power supply had been released on OS.OL.2O22 in favour of respondent Nos. 4 & S without considering the petitioners' objection petition/representation, dated O2.OL.2O23 and without duty examining the documents submitted by the petitioners along with the. said representation of the petitioners, dated 3O.O3.2O24 since admittedly as borne on record, there is neither any reference or discussion in relation to the said documents enclosed along with petitioners, objection petition/representation, dated 3O.03.2024, and it is only observed that the petitioners did not submit any supporting documents in support of the petitioners, objections/claims which is in fact factuaily incorrect and admittedly and apparenfly contrary to record. 6 The Ao Court in the iud ment reDorted in 20L7 vol.5 SCC 5O6 in Baran aqore Ju Factorv PLC. Mazdoor 5 Sanqh (BMS) and Others Vs. Baranaoore Jute Factorv PLC. And Others, at Dara No.23 observed as under:- "23. As held bv this Court in DDA v. Skipper Construction co.(D.) Ltd., and ooino a steD further, the Court has dutv to issue appropriate directions for remedvinq or rectifvinq the thinqs done in violation of the orders. In that reqard the Court mav even take restit utive measures at anv staqe of the Droceedinqs."

7. This Court opines that the respondent herein had deliberately violated the order of this Court, dated 11.O1.2O23 passed in W.P.No.1101 of 2O23 and this Court has a duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the orders of this Court, dated 3O.1O.2O23 passed in W.P.No.138O ot 2023.

8. Takino into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, \ .- ,- !i 6 c) The order of this Court, dated 30.1O.2023 passed in W.P.No. 1380 of 2O23. d) The observations of the Apex Court at para NO.23 of the judgment reported in 2O17 vol.S SCC 5O6 in Baranagore Jute Factory pLC. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) and Others Vs. Baranagore Jute Factory pLC. And Others (referred to and extracted above) e) The fact as borne on record that the documents enclosed with petitioners' representation, dated 3O.O3.2O24 had not been considered since there is neither any reference nor any discussion pertaaning to the said documents in the proceeding issued by the 2"d respondent, dated 21.12.2024 in compliance to the directions of this Court, dated 30.1O.2O23 passed in W.P.No.138O of 2O23. The present Contempt Case is disposed of directing the respondent to rectify the mistake occurred in implementing the orders of this Court, dated 30.1O,2O23 passed in W.P.No.138O of 2023 wathin a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of t I ! I 7 copy of the order and pass appropriate orders as indicated in the order of this Court, dated 3O.1O.2O23 passed in W.P.No.138O of 2023, in true compliance to the specific directions of this Court, dated 3O.1O.2O23 passed in W.P.No.138O of 2023 in its true spirit. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SO/.I.NAGALAKSHMI REGISTRAR D ,$ ON OFFICER --/_

1. Sri. Srinath Reddy, Occ. Divisional Engineer (Operation), TSSpDCL, Medchal Circle, Jeedimetla Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 2. One CC to Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, S.C. for Telangani TRANSCO IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Plp/DL HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 ORDER gTA TE o 1 i t$ utq O 2$11 7 (: ,) CC.No.1059 of 2024 _3 nli;.',i ",r^.,.2/ DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT CASE 7 4/ /< I