✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 24 Jan 2005

Prashant Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Shri R. Satyanarayana, Extension Officer (Panchayat Raj & Rural

Contempt Case No. 1607 of 2004B SUDERSHAN REDDY2 min read

Case at a glance

Order date
24 Jan 2005
Bench
B SUDERSHAN REDDY

Provisions considered

Judgment

Between: Prashant Nagar Residents Welfare Association, Represented by its President Mr. Y.S. Janardhan S/o. late Y.B. Sadgunachary, R/o. Plot No. 224, Prashant Nagar, Bandlaguda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..Petitioner AND

1.

Shri R. Satyanarayana, Extension Officer (Panchayat Raj & Rural Development), rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.

The Sarpanch, Bandlaguda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar Mandal.

3.

The Sarpanch, Bandlaguda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar Mandal.

4.

Shri A.N. Abraham S/o. late Nathanial, R/o. H.No. 9-84/1/141, Kakatiyanagar, Near Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. (Parties numbered 2nd to 4th are not necessary parties)

5.

Sri M. Vital Reddy, Extension Officer, (Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Rajendranagar Mandal, R. R. District. ..Respondents To Shri R. Satyanarayana, Extension Officer (Panchayat Raj & Rural Development), rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. WHEREAS your attendance is necessary to answer the charges of the Contempt of Courts viz; to punish the respondents 1 and 3 herein for their willfur violation and deliberate disobedience to the order dated 27-2-2004 as made in CRP.No. 171 of 2004 under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. You viz ; 1. M. Someshwar Reddy S/o. M. Gali Reddy, Occ : Proprietor, M.G. Constructions, R/o. 408, Srinivasa Towers, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 2. Sri B. Atmaram, Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. are hereby required to appear in person before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on at 10.30.a.m and show cause why you shall not be punished or other appropriate order be not passed against you for Contempt of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. You shall attend High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in person on at 10.30.am and shall continue to attend the High Court on all days thereafter to which date the case against you stands as adjourned and until final orders are passed on the charge against you. Herein fail not. DEPUTY REGISTRAR To 1. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (in duplicate along with copies of petition and affidavit for service on the Respondent No. 1 and return to this court on or before ) 2. The District Judge, Karimnagar District. (in duplicate along with copies of petition and affidavit for service on the Respondent No. 3 and return to this court on or before ) 3. M. Someshwar Reddy S/o. M. Gali Reddy, Occ : Proprietor, M.G. Constructions, R/o. 408, Srinivasa Towers, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 4. Sri B. Atmaram, Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. (SL.NOS. 3 & 4 BY R.P.A.D. along with a copy of petition & affidavit) 5. Two spare copies. TKK HIGH COURT EDRJ DATE: 24-1-2005. ORDER C.C. NO. 1607 OF 2004 NOTICE FOR APPEARANCE OF THE RESPONDENTS DRAFTED BY : TKK DRAFTED ON : 25-1-2005. HIGH COURT EDR.J DATE: 24-1-2005 NOTE : POST AFTR 4 WEEKS FOR APPEARANCE. ORDER C.C. NO. 1607 OF 2004 NOTICE FOR APPEARANCE OF THE RESPONDENTS

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — ss. 10, 12.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 24 Jan 2005. The bench was B SUDERSHAN REDDY.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Contempt Case No. 1607 of 2004). ← Search more judgments