Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27885 (AP)

Nabi Rasool v. Mr. Raymond Peter

CC/1209/2012 · 2026-03-31

Harinath N

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010714862012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1209/2012 Between: 1. NABI RASOOL, S/O ABDUL RAHAMAN, OCC: HINDI TEACHER, PRESENTLY WORKING AT APSWRS/JC, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. V.PRADEEP KUMAR,, S/O MINNALLA, OCC: RT TGT (SOCIAL), PRESENTLY WORKING AT APSWRS/JC, ALURU, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. K.DHANA LAXMI, D/O K.ANNAIAH, OCC: RT TGT (MATHS), PRESENTLY WORKING AT APSWRS/JC, KURGUNTLA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MR RAYMOND PETER, THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. SRI CHIRANJEEVULU, THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICE COMPLEX, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may 2 be Pleased to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondent for violation order passed by the Hon'ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar in W.P.M.P.No.42510 in 2011, in W.P.No.34156 of 2011 dt.19-01-2012 and punish the respondent suitably and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 2. K DURGA PRASAD 3. G SIMHADRI (SC FOR APREIS TW SW BC) 4. N BHUPAL REDDY The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: 1. It is submitted that Writ Petition No.34156 of 2011 was dismissed as infructuous by this Court by an order dated 16.08.2023. In view of the said order and the dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous, nothing further survives for consideration in the present contempt proceedings. 2. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that nothing further remains for adjudication, the present contempt case stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:01.04.2026 PNS