PATTEM SURYAPRAKASH RAO Vs. AMARENDER RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed to punish the respondent for contempt of Court, for violating the order of this Court dated 8. 2. 2005 in WPMP No. 2333 of 2005 in WP no. 23156 of 2004.

(2.) PETITIONER filed WP No. 23156 of 2004 questioning the order dated 6. 12. 2004 of the Reserve Bank of India cancelling the licence of the Prudential Co-operative bank Limited (for short - 'the Bank') under section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act and the consequential order passed by the registrar of the Co-operative Societies in appointing the respondent as the liquidator of the Bank. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Bank, with the permission of the State Government, introduced a Scheme of One Time Settlement (OTS scheme ). Questioning introduction of the said OTS Scheme, petitioner filed WPMP no. 2333 of 2005 in WP No. 23156 of 2004 and sought the suspension of the said ots Scheme. By the order dated 8. 2. 2005 interim suspension of the OTS Scheme was granted by this Court. Subsequently, by the common order dated 5. 5. 2005 in WP nos. 23156 and 24346 of 2004 and 2501 of 2005 and WPMP No. 2333 of 2005 in WP no. 23156 of 2004, WP No. 23156 of 2004 was partly allowed and the order of the reserve Bank of India directing the winding up of the Bank and the consequential order of Registrar of Co-operative Societies appointing the respondent as Liquidator, were set aside and WPMP No. 2333 of 2005 in wp No. 23156 of 2004 in which the interim order violated was passed was dismissed. It is stated that an appeal in WA No. 1053 of 2005 was preferred questioning the order dated 5. 5. 2005, partly allowing WP No. 23156 of 2004, and that a Division Bench heard that appeal and reserved the case 'for orders'.

(3.) ALLEGING that the respondent had, in violation of the interim order granted on 8. 2. 2005 in WPMP No. 2333 of 2005 suspending the operation of the OTS scheme, given the benefit of OTS Scheme to Mr. Y. Rajiv Reddy and his associates (for short - 'the borrowers') and thus violated the above interim order of this Court, the petitioner in WPMP No. 2333 of 2005 filed this petition to punish the respondent for contempt of Court.