High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 09 AP CK 0007

M.RambabuVs D.V.R.Kumar

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 29 September 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Battu Devanand, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Case No. 1221 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 325 words

Battu Devanand, J

1.

This Contempt Case has been filed complaining non- implementation of the Order dated 26.03.2021 in W.P.No.6623 of 2021 passed by this Court.

2.

This Court by Order dated 26.03.2021 set aside the Demand Notice No.2824/TP/2020, dated 24.12.2020 issued by respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 shall consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice for passing further orders in this matter. This Court also directed that till taking the decision afresh by respondent No.2, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to excavate the ordinary earth minerals as per permission granted by them through Proceedings No. PRO411200597001, dated 03.10.2020.

3.

A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5.

The respondent present before this Court in compliance of the Notice issued in Form-1 dated 31.08.2021.

6.

Upon perusal of the contents of the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondent and having heard the submissions of the respective counsel, it appears that the temporary permission granted in favour of the petitioner was expired by 16.11.2020 and as such, permitting the petitioner to excavate the ordinary earth minerals as per the permission granted dated 03.10.2020 does not arise. It appears, under the impression that the temporary permit granted to the petitioner vide Proceedings dated 03.10.2020 is in existence as on the date of passing the order, such direction was issued by this Court. Now, it is clear that as on the date of the order of the Court, the temporary permission has expired and as such, the question of permitting the petitioner for excavation by respondent No.2 does not arise.

7.

In view of the above, there is no any willful disobedience on the part of the respondent in complying the Order of this Court.

8.

Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.