Sri Saranga Padmakar, vs Smt. Chada Ramulamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 1223 Tel

Item No.56

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                           C.A.No.2 OF 2011

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    Though the name of learned counsel appearing for the

respondent has been reflected in the cause list, none was present on

behalf of the respondent on the last date of hearing. Same is the

position today.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2011

passed by the learned Single Judge in C.C.No.414 of 2011 arising

from W.P.No.833 of 2011 whereunder, the learned Single Judge had

opined that he has violated the order dated 24.01.2011 whereby, the

suspension order dated 04.01.2011 issued by the appellant has been

stayed during the pendency of the writ petition and resultantly, the

appellant has been sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for a

period of 15 days besides paying a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

3. Mr. A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader

states that before the impugned order was passed, the writ petition

came to be decided on 24.01.2011 by directing the appellant to

conduct a fresh enquiry in the matter. The said enquiry was

concluded on 27.07.2011 and permission to the writ petitioner, to run

the fair price shop was restored. Stating that the appellant has retired

on 31.03.2020 and he has already deposited the fine, he requests that

the appellant's unqualified apology may be accepted and the matter

may be closed.

4. In view of the long passage of time, the fact that the writ

petitioner had succeeded in the petition and the appellant has paid the

fine of Rs.2,000/-, no further orders are required to be passed in the

present appeal, which is accordingly disposed of along with the

pending applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

16.04.2021 Lrkm