THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.604 of 2014 Dated: 27.06.2014 Between:
M/s. Potana Granites Rep. by its Prop. Sri K. Venkaiah .. Petitioner And Sri G. Kishan .. Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Kowturu Pawan Kumar for Mr. Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 08.10.2013 in W.P.No.8607 of 2013.
The respondent filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that as appropriate application was not filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, who is the convenor of the committee and competent to receive the application for N.O.Cs., in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 02.01.2013, the respondent has asked the petitioner to make such application for consideration by the committee.
Today, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) placed before the Court proceedings vide Rc.No.C2/2337/2013 dated 20.06.2014 of the respondent, whereby the petitioner’s application for N.O.C. was rejected.
Mr. Kowturu Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of rejection is based on the report of the Deputy Tahsildar as was done by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his order dated 04.03.2013, with reference to which this Court has given a direction to the respondent not to be influenced by any findings rendered in the said order.
A perusal of the proceedings dated 20.06.2014 of the respondent would show that there is no reference to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Whether the committee has applied its mind independently or not needs to be examined in a properly instituted proceedings by the petitioner for questioning the said order, if it so chooses. As the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 20.06.2014 does not fall within the scope of the present contempt case, the said issue is left open for a decision in the event the petitioner chooses to question the said order.
Subject to the above observations, the contempt case is closed.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th June, 2014 IBL