THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO.14047 of 2006 23rd October 2006 Between: 1. The Principal, Government College of Physical Education, Hyderabad. And one other. …PETITIONERS AND 1. M.Ram Reddy, S/o.Matha reddy, 42 years, Occ.Lecturer in Physical Education, Physical Director, Grade-I, Government College of Physical Education, Domalguda, Hyderabad. And two others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO.14047 of 2006 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioners sought to assail the impugned orders dated 06.06.2006 and 20.06.2006 in O.A.No.3005 of 2006 and V.M.A.No.696 of 2006 respectively on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (‘the Tribunal’ for brevity). As already observed, while entertaining the Writ Petition, in the interim orders passed on 11.07.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.17502 of 2006, the grievance of the petitioners was only to the effect that in spite of the fact that the vacate stay application has been filed, the same was not taken up and yet the respondent-original applicant has filed Contempt Application No.516 of 2006. Now, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that having regard to the aforesaid interim order, the Contempt Application has been closed and even the vacate stay application has been disposed of not on merits but having taken note of the interim order passed by this Court. Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that that the main O.A. is still pending. Having regard to the fact that the ad interim order passed by the Tribunal and the vacate stay application has not been disposed of on merits, it would suffice in the interest of justice to direct the Tribunal to take up the application in V.M.A.No.696 of 2006 and dispose of the same on merits, after hearing both the sides. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. It is needless to mention that, if warrants, it is always open for the respondent-original applicant to file fresh proceedings of contempt. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ___________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J) 23rd October 2006 RRB