Telangana High Court
A. Raju vs The State Of A.P. on 21 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.10224 of 2010
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
01) 29-04- CVNR, J
2010 WP.No.10224 of 2010
Rule Nisi. Call for records. Notice
returnable in four weeks.
_____________________________
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J
WPMP.No.13135 of 2010
It is submitted by learned Counsel for the
petitioners and not disputed by the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Home
representing respondent Nos.1 to 6 that in a batch
of Writ Petitions filed raising identical issues, this
Court granted interim direction.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners
placed reliance on interim order, dated 20-10-2009,
in WPMP.No.29091 of 2009 in W.P.No.22399 of
2009, in support of his submission.
In view of the same, there shall be interim
suspension as prayed for.
_____________________________
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J
lur
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
BN, J & GC, J
(Contd...)
The learned single Judge found that
respondents 2 to 4 in the Writ Petition
were not eligible to be promoted and they
had been promoted although they were
ineligible.
Respondents 2 to 4 have, now, filed
an appeal with a delay of 164 days. Let
the respondents file their counter to the
application for condonation of delay in
filing the said appeal.
filing the said appeal.
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
There has been no stay of the
judgment of the
learned single Judge. But the
judgment of the learned single Judge is
not being implemented from 29-12--2004.
On last occasion also, we have told the
learned Counsel for the appellant that the
judgment needs to be implemented, and
today, she has produced a copy of the
letter received by Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy,
Advocate. This letter is nothing but an
attempt to defeat the judgment of this
Court in avoiding to consider the case of
the writ petitioner for promotion. The
relevant portion of this letter reads as
SL. DATE relevant portion ORDER
of this letter reads as OFFICE
NO. under: NOTE
'Once the vacancies
a r e cleared, we are
interested to consider the
case of Mr.D.Harinatha
Reddy, as it was submitted
to the Court. H e n c e , we
request you to put forth
(P.T.O.,)
BN, J & GC, J
(Contd...)
the above information before
t h e Court and request
learned Judge to give time
up to March, 2006. We
request you to use your
good office to appraise the
Court and to protect Bank's
interest'.
This letter merely says that once the
vacancies were cleared, the Bank was
interested to consider the case. It
nowhere shows any urgency to implement
the order of the Court. Vacancies can be
cleared after decade or two decades.
Therefore, we feel that the appellant in this
appeal is, prima facie, in Contempt of this
Court.
Issue notice to the appellant-Sri
P.Gopala Krishna, Chairman, Sri
Venkateswara Grameena Bank, Chittoor,
as to why Contempt Proceedings be not
initiated against him. He shall file counter
within two weeks and shall remain present
on the next date of hearing.
List on 21-03-2006.
______________
07-03-
lur
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
BN, J & SAR, J
BN, J & SAR, J
This application has been filed by
respondent No.3-applicant seeking
extension of time and also seeking prayer
that the respondents should give a set off
f o r Rs.93,31,706/- (Rupees ninety three
lakhs thirty one thousand seven hundred
and six only) which according to him are
the losses suffered by him.
That is a matter, which will have to
be gone into before taking a decision on
the question whether the petitioner
suffered any losses and if so, whether he
is entitled to recover those losses in these
proceedings. Therefore, at this stage, we
cannot allow the prayer of the applicant
that he should be permitted to deposit only
Rs2,06,68,294/- (Rupees two crores six
lakhs sixty eight thousand two hundred
and ninety four only) and not Rs.3.17
crores.
At this stage, the learned senior
Counsel appearing for the applicant
submits that the applicant has no
submits that the applicant has no
SL. DATE property is put to fresh OFFICE
objection if the ORDER
NO.
auction, but it should not be taken as NOTE
adjudication of his claim to the
compensation and losses.
BN, J & SAR, J
(Contd...)
This issue will be decided after a
counter is filed to the present application.
As far as the extension of time is
concerned, the request of the applicant is
rejected and the official liquidator is at
liberty to put the property to fresh auction
as the applicant has also conceded that
fresh auction may be allowed. The
applicant also will be entitled to participate
in the fresh auction. T h e Earned Money
Deposit (EMD) already paid by the
applicant to the extent of Rs.17 lakhs,
when the property was put to auction
earlier, may be returned to the applicant.
______________
03-02-2006
lur
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
