SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 76333

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Dosala Mangamma – Appellant
Versus
Gangadhar – Respondent
CC 345/2026



THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE JUKANTI ANIL KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.345 of 2026

ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed to summon respondent herein and punish him suitably under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for shot ‘the Act’) for deliberate disobedience and willful violation of order dated

17.04.2018 in W.P.No.13580 of 2017

2. A learned Single Judge of this Court on 17.04.2018 in W.P.No.13580 of 2017, passed the following order:-

“The petitioner substantially complains inaction in considering and disposing of acknowledgment dated 31.01.2015.

The petitioner apprehending dispossession pending consideration has filed the instant writ petition.

On 24.04.2017, this Court directed maintenance of status quo provided the subject matter of regulation is not in the road margin.

The counsel consent to disposing of the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of by this order.

The 2nd respondent considers and disposes of the application in accordance with the applicable Government Order, within months from today. Till then status quo granted by this Court is directed to be maintained.

No order as to costs.”

3. On a perusal of the order supra, it is evident that there was a direction to respondent authorities to dispose of petitioner’s application/representation within a period of four (4) months, till then, status quo was to be maintained. The order of the learned Single Judge is of the year 2018. Contempt Case is filed in the year 2025, hit by Section 20 of Act.

4. Section 20 of the Act is as follows:-

“20. Limitation for actions for contempt.—

No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.”

5. This Court queried the reasons for delay, made it clear that the long delay cannot be condoned in the absence of supporting cause for delay. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he intends not to press the contempt case.

6. Considering the submissions made, this Contempt Case is dismissed as not pressed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J

14.11.2025 ssm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top