{"id":11009,"date":"2026-11-09T14:44:32","date_gmt":"2026-11-09T14:44:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsofbharath.com\/?p=11009"},"modified":"2026-11-10T15:42:57","modified_gmt":"2026-11-10T15:42:57","slug":"telangana-high-court-sentences-ranga-reddy-district-collector-to-six-months-jail-for-contempt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsofbharath.com\/?p=11009","title":{"rendered":"Telangana High Court sentences Ranga Reddy district collector to six months jail for contempt"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

News of Bharath Ranga Reddy : The Telangana High Court has delivered a sensational verdict in a case involving the disregard of clear judicial orders. A bench led by Justice K. Lakshman concluded that the Ranga Reddy District Collector, C. Narayana Reddy, had committed contempt of court by violating the court’s directives. Consequently, the court sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000.*Verdict Following Inquiry into the Violation!*The High Court strongly criticized Collector C. Narayana Reddy for failing to act when the court\u2019s orders were initially issued, noting that he only took nominal action after a petition was filed. The court determined that he had committed contempt of court willfully. Emphasizing that it is unacceptable for an IAS-rank officer to neglect judicial orders, the bench took this stern action.What exactly happened? The High Court had previously directed the Collector to examine a request filed by affected parties seeking the removal of certain plots from the list of prohibited properties, as per Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908. In accordance with the court’s order issued in August 2025, a decision was required to be taken within 60 days. However, as there was no response from the Collector even after the 60-day deadline had elapsed, the affected parties filed a contempt of court petition on October 15, 2025. Following the filing of this petition, the authorities took action; they issued notices to the affected parties and, on February 26, 2026, rejected their request. Subsequently, on July 8, a second rejection order was issued. The bench expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which the process was summarily concluded only after the contempt of court petition had been filed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n

NEWS<\/a><\/div>\n\n