THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.1515 of 2010 Date:20.12.2010 Between: N.Satyanarayana and others ..... Petitioners AND Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for Respondent: Sri G.Nagabhushan Reddy For Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 05.03.2009, in W.P.No.13947 of 2001. I have heard Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri G.Nagabhushan Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APNPDCL, for respondent No.2. This Court by order, dated 05.03.2009, disposed of the above said writ petition following the order, dated 04.03.2009, in W.P.Nos.9256 of 2001 and 21357 of 2002. By the said order, this Court has inter alia directed as under: “For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petitions are allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.9256 of 2001 and respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.No.21357 of 2002 are directed to consider the claims of the petitioners as ex-contract labour subject to their filing proof of having been engaged by their respective Lions Clubs. If the respondents find the documents to be filed by the petitioners as genuine, the petitioners shall be considered for absorption in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. The respondents shall complete this exercise, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners.” In the present contempt case, the grievance of the petitioners is that despite the said order passed by this Court as far back as 05.03.2009, no decision has been taken though three months’ time stipulated in the said order has expired long time back. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is inter alia stated that the petitioners have made representations to the Superintending Engineer (Operation), APNPDCL, Khammam, who was not a party to the writ petition and that therefore respondent No.2 had no knowledge of the above order till filing of the contempt case. He has further stated that when he came to know about the said order in September, 2010 he has taken immediate steps to comply with the order by passing an order and accordingly a speaking order was issued on 21.09.2010 rejecting the petitioners’ cases. At the hearing, Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that the rejection order is passed without proper consideration of the petitioners’ claims. I am afraid, this contention cannot be considered as the same falls outside the scope of the contempt case. Undoubtedly, there was delay in passing the order by respondent No.2. Having considered the explanation offered by him, I am not inclined to consider this delay as constituting contempt. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the rejection order, they are free to question the same in appropriate proceedings. Subject to the above observation, the contempt case is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt.20.12.2010 VGB