IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE No.168 of 2011 (Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated 05.05.2010 in WP.No.10967 of 2010.) BETWEEN: C.S.R. Sarma College, Ongole and another. ... PETITIONER AND Sri Adhar Sinha, I.A.S. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. Y.V. RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed by the petitioner in WP.No.10967 of 2010 alleging that the operative directions in the writ petition have not been adhered to by the respondent. 2. The directions may be quoted as under: “…The petitioners, therefore, are granted ten days time from today to file a detailed representation with documents to enable the 2nd respondent to consider all the attending circumstances and pass appropriate and reasoned order thereon. The 2nd respondent shall also grant one opportunity of personal hearing to the Correspondent of the petitioner-college, consider all the representations and documents and take a reasoned decision.” 3. It is submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid directions the petitioner-college submitted a detailed representation through covering letter dated 14.05.2010 but later the petitioner received the proceedings of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, dated 03.02.2011, a reading of which shows that findings are reached against the petitioner-college even ahead of opportunity of personal hearing and due consideration of petitioner’s representation. The learned counsel for the petitioner-college states that the Commissioner recorded his findings not only on the subject matter of the show cause notice but also on additional aspects and after recording adverse findings a date of hearing was fixed to enable the petitioner to personally represent his case. Learned counsel says that the aforesaid proceedings dated 03.02.2011 violates the operative portion of the order of this Court and defeats the object and purpose of the said order inasmuch as the Commissioner having given findings against the petitioner, nothing remains to be considered in the personal hearing proposed. 4. Notice before admission was ordered on 18.02.2011 and learned Government Pleader has filed counter affidavit and both parties were heard on 25.02.2011. 5. The counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner purports to claim that the conclusions as found in the order dated 03.02.2011 are mere prima facie findings and they shall not influence the petitioner’s representation and appropriate orders would be passed thereon. It is also tried to be contended that the said findings, in fact, emanate from the audit report and those findings in verbatim are extracted in the said proceedings without pointing that they are extracts of the said audit report. In other words, the conclusions, as shown in the order dated 03.02.2011, are now sought to be explained by the said counter affidavit to claim that those findings are mere prima facie findings. He also recorded that all the material as submitted by the petitioner along with his representation will be taken into consideration. 6. It is well settled that the respondent cannot explain the impugned proceedings nor give reasons in support of the same by filing a counter affidavit in the Court at later point of time (see MOHINDER SINGH GILL v. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI (AIR 1978 SC 851)). Even otherwise and even if we treat the said findings in the order dated 03.02.2011 as prima facie or tentative or extracts of the audit report, it is evident that there are several other findings in the said order, which may prejudice the petitioner and it appears that those conclusions are already drawn against him. Even if the learned Commissioner says that the said findings are prima facie findings, I find it difficult to accept that he has no made up his mind with regard to the allegations appearing against the petitioner. 7. In view of the principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done, this Court had directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether the entire issue arising out of show cause issued by the respondent herein can be enquired into and considered and disposed of by an Officer superior to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh would be the superior authority to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education and the matter can be impartially looked into and considered and disposed of. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this contempt case shall stand disposed of and the operative directions in WP.No.10967 of 2010 dated 05.05.2010 shall now stand reiterated against the first respondent in the writ petition, in stead of second respondent, who shall consider the representation of the petitioner-college including its objections with respect to the aspects covered by the show cause notice and as found in the order of Commissioner dated 03.02.2011 and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 4, 2011 DSK