Alla Aruna Kumari, Visakhapatnam ... vs Praveen Kumar, I.A.S., ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2898 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

            CONTEMPT CASE No.2003 of 2017

ORDER:

The petitioner had sought renewal of her license for

manufacturing fireworks and selling the crackers at

Sy.No.20/7B of Kondakoppaka Village, Anakapalli Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District. Aggrieved by the inaction of the 2nd

respondent in renewing the said license, the petitioner had

approached this Court by way of W.P.No.43616 of 2016. The

same was disposed of by this Court by an order dated

29.12.2016, directing the 2nd respondent therein to consider the

application of the petitioner dated 22.06.2013 and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within a period of two months.

2. The petitioner had thereupon filed the present

contempt case on the ground that the direction of this Court has

not been complied with, as no endorsement or order had been

passed in the case of the petitioner. The respondent has now

filed a counter affidavit stating that the order of this Court has

been complied with by passing an order dated 13.10.2017 in

RC.No.3227/2016/C3.

3. In the said order, it is stated that the Judgment of

this Court had not been received by the Collector's Office until

07.08.2017, when the petitioner had reminded the respondents

about the direction issued to the respondent by this Court, by

enclosing a copy of the order.

                                  2                              RRR,J
                                                   C.C.No.2003 of 2017

4. The order dated 13.10.2017 states that a notice was

issued to the petitioner and the order was passed after hearing

the petitioner. The request of the petitioner was rejected on the

ground that the petitioner was not able to demonstrate lawful

possession of the site, for which the license for sought.

5. Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner submits that the inordinate delay in passing

the order beyond the time stipulated in the order of this Court

amounts to a clear violation and non compliance of the direction

of this Court.

6. The order of compliance itself states that the

respondent was unaware of the order of this Court till

07.08.2017, and thereafter, the said order has been passed on

13.10.2017 which is more or less in compliance with the

direction of this Court. It may also be pointed out that the

petitioner does not state anywhere as to the date on which the

order of this Court was received by the respondent.

7. In the circumstances, there has been substantial

compliance of the direction of this Court.

8. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

05.08.2021
SDP
                         3                         RRR,J
                                     C.C.No.2003 of 2017

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CONTEMPT CASE No.2003 of 2017

05-08-2021

SDP