HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.464 of 2011 in W.P.M.P. No.17147 of 2010 in WRIT PETITION No.21235 of 2009 Date: July 29, 2011 Between: M/s. Mc. Dowell & Co., Ltd., now known as United Spirits, rep. by Power of Authority Holder Krishna Swamy Iyenger, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And A.C. Punetha, I.A.S., The State of A.P., rep. by Prl. Secretary To Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. … Contemnor/ Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.464 of 2011 in W.P.M.P. No.17147 of 2010 in WRIT PETITION No.21235 of 2009 O R D E R: This contempt case is filed alleging disobedience to the order dated 23.6.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.17147 of 2010 in W.P. No.21235 of 2009. By the said order this Court, taking note of the fact that the earlier interim order dated 03.11.2009 passed in the very same writ petition directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application dated 01.7,2009 had not been implemented and in the meanwhile the Law Department of the State had also offered its opinion in the context thereof, directed the respondents to take into consideration the said opinion contained in paras 52 to 69 of the Note File and also all other relevant aspects, and pass necessary orders. As the time granted under the earlier interim order dated 03.11.2009 had long expired, the respondents were directed to pass orders upon the petitioner’s application dated 01.7.2009 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. Alleging that no orders had been passed as directed by this Court within the time stipulated, this contempt case was instituted. Thereupon, the Government issued orders in Memo No.29511/UC.III(2)/2008-12 dated 25.4.2011 in purported implementation of the order of this Court and thereby disposing of the petitioner’s representation dated 01.7.2009. However, perusal of the Memo dated 25.4.2011 reflected that the opinion of the Law Department of the State had not been taken into consideration while disposing of the petitioner’s representation dated 01.7.2009. As this was not in keeping with the direction of this Court, the learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent was asked to look into this aspect of the matter. Thereupon, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo dated 11.7.2011 withdrawing the earlier Memo dated 25.4.2011 on the ground that the same did not reflect a detailed discussion of the opinion of the Law Department and the learned Advocate General. Fresh proceedings in Memo No.29511/UC.III(2)/2008-15 dated 12.7.2011 were issued thereupon disposing of the petitioner’s representation dated 01.7.2009. 3. Sri C. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner company, vehemently contended that the Memo dated 12.7.2011 is also not in keeping with the directions of this Court in its order dated 23.6.2010. Counsel submitted that there was no discussion in the Memo dated 12.7.2011 as to the specific points on which the Law Department of the State had offered its opinion in paras 52 to 69 of the Note File. It is however to be noticed that this Court merely observed that the respondents were bound to take into consideration the said opinion of the Law Department and also all other relevant aspects and directed the respondents to pass necessary orders upon the petitioner’s application dated 01.7.2009 within a time frame. There was thus no specific direction as to how the Government was to act in the matter, be it in accordance with the opinion offered by the Law Department or at variance with it. It was for the Government to pass necessary orders in the matter after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, including the opinion offered by the Law Department. 4. The Memo dated 12.7.2011 demonstrates that the opinion of the Law Department was taken into consideration as is evident from paras 30 to 33 thereof. Once the Government considered the opinion of the Law Department and chose to take a different view of the matter, it cannot be said to be in violation of the order of this court. 5. Needless to state, it is not for this Court while exercising contempt jurisdiction to go into the merits of the consideration by the authorities pursuant to its order to consider and pass necessary orders. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the consideration of its representation dated 01.7.2009 as reflected in the Memo dated 12.7.2011, it is for it to assail the same by way of appropriate independent proceedings in accordance with law. The same cannot be made the subject matter of scrutiny or examination on merits in a contempt case. 6. In so far as this contempt case is concerned, the Memo dated 12.7.2011 reflects sufficient compliance. The delay in compliance is not shown to be wilful or negligent. There is therefore no disobedience by the respondent to the order of this Court in W.P.M.P. No.17147 of 2010 in W.P. No.21235 of 2009 warranting exercise of contempt jurisdiction. 7. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: July 29, 2011. BSB