D Srinivasa Rao vs. Sri Somesh Kumar Ias

Facts

The petitioner, a Joint Commissioner of State GST under suspension, filed a Contempt Case (CC No. 1344 of 2021) alleging willful violation of a High Court order dated 18-08-2021 in W.P.No.25480 of 2019. The respondents were the Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Telangana, Revenue Department, and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner sought directions for immediate reinstatement into service. However, the respondents had filed a Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 635 of 2021) against the original High Court order. A Division Bench of the High Court subsequently set aside the Single Judge's order and remitted the matter back to the file of the learned Single Judge.

Held

The Court held that the Contempt Case did not call for any adjudication. This decision was based on the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents had preferred a Writ Appeal against the order in W.P. No. 25480 of 2019. The Division Bench of the High Court had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter back to the file of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the contempt proceedings, which were predicated on the original order of the Single Judge, were rendered moot. The Court found no necessity to proceed with the contempt adjudication given the subsequent developments in the Writ Appeal. The operative direction was to close the Contempt Case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Contempt Case is maintainable in light of the subsequent filing of a Writ Appeal and the order passed by the Division Bench. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner initiated the contempt proceedings alleging a willful violation of the High Court's order. The primary concern was to enforce the original order. Respondents' Argument: The respondents contended that the original order, which was the basis for the contempt petition, had been set aside by a Division Bench in a Writ Appeal. They argued that the matter was remitted back to the Single Judge, thereby altering the status of the original order and potentially rendering the contempt proceedings infructuous. The respondents relied on the fact that the Division Bench's order superseded the Single Judge's order.