IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.591 of 2010 Between: S. Yesupadam … Petitioner And Sri Sambasiva Rao, Secretary, Education (SE.PS.II) Dept., Govt., of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.V.S. Kumar Counsel for the respondents: GP for School Education The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.591 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 07.04.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.6859 of 2009, whereby this Court directed respondent No.1 to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 17.07.2007 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. A counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit have been filed by the respondents. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that respondent No.1 has passed an order on 22.04.2010 disposing of the petitioner’s representation. As there is a delay of more than one year in complying with the said order, the contempt case was admitted and personal presence of respondent No.1 was ordered. Accordingly, today respondent No.1 is present in-person in the Court. He has also filed an additional counter affidavit, wherein he has stated that the copy of the order of this Court was received on 17.06.2009, that he has sought for relevant information from the office of the Commissioner and Director of School Education and that due to non-receipt of the said information for a long time, the representation could not be disposed of within the stipulated time. He has also stated that he has assumed charge of Secretary to Government (SE) in the first week of February 2010 and reviewed all the Court cases and that he has established a legal monitoring cell to monitor all the cases coming up in the Courts. Though there is a delay of 266 days in complying with the order of the Court, the explanation submitted by respondent No.1 deserves to be accepted. But this Court is quite often observing that the orders passed by it stipulating a time frame for disposal of the representations are not being complied with. This Court is of the view that whenever the respondents find it difficult to adhere to the time limit stipulated by the Courts, it is incumbent upon them to apply for extension of time. Now that respondent No.1 has come forth with the information that a legal monitoring cell has been created, it is hoped that the lapses similar to the one that have occurred in this case will not be repeated in future. The petitioner is entitled to question the order passed by respondent No.1, if he feels aggrieved by the same. Subject to the above observations, the contempt case is closed. As a sequel to disposal of the contempt case, contempt application No.527 of 2010 filed for dispensing with the presence of the contemnor is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.06.2010. ES