IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR : PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE : V. ESWARAIAH. CONTEMPT CASE No. 194 of 2004 Between: Smt. Alapu Bala Dhana Vijaya Laxmi. .. Petitioner AND 1. Sri Siva Shanker, I.P.S., The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. Y. Vijay Kumar, The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., East Godavari Region at Rajahmundry. .. Respondents To 1. Sri Siva Shanker, I.P.S., The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. Y. Vijay Kumar, The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., East Godavari Region at Rajahmundry. WHEREAS the Petitioner herein has presented a petition to this court under Section 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for committing the above named Respondents for Contempt of Court for disobeying and not complying with the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court on 13-11-2003 in W.P.M.P. No. 30037 of 2003 in W.P. No. 23888 of 2003, as willful and deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondents, which attracts the penal provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. WHEREAS this court made the following Order : “Counter is filed stating that the case of the petitioner has been considered and rejected vide proceedings dated 10-03-2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said consideration is not at all a consideration as there is a specific direction given by this Court to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in a suitable post, but instead of appointing the petitioner as directed by this Court, on compassionate grounds, rejected the case of the petitioner once again an this the fourth round of litigation and that the wife of a deceased employer cannot afford to file another petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view the Contempt Case has to be heard along with the Writ Petition. Admit. Since counter is filed, appearance of the respondents is dispensed with. Post the C.C. along with W.p. 23888/2003 for final hearing in usual course. ” AND WHEREAS this court while dispensing with presence of Respondents 1 & 2 hath is this day directed issue of notices returnable in usual course to the above named Respondents to show cause why, in the circumstances stated in the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof (copies of which are annexed hereto) they should not be punished for contempt of court; Now : Therefore you namely ; 1. Sri Siva Shanker, I.P.S., Managing Director, The A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. Y. Vijay Kumar, The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., East Godavari Region at Rajahmundry. 2 BE AND HEREBY are directed to show cause why in the circumstances stated in the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, you should not be punished for contempt of court ; DEPUTY REGISTRAR To 1. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (in duplicate along with copies of petition and affidavit for service on the Respondent No. 1 and return) 2. The District Judge, East Godavari District, at Rajahmundry. (in duplicate along with copies of petition and affidavit for service on the Respondent No. 2 and return) 3. Sri Siva Shanker, I.P.S., Managing Director, The A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (By Special Messenger along with a copy of Petition and affidavit) 4. Y. Vijay Kumar, The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., East Godavari Region at Rajahmundry. (By Speed Post long with a copy of Petition and affidavit) 5. One spare copy. USR. HIGH COURT Dated : 16-08-2004 Note : Post the C.C. along with W.P. 23888/2003 For final hearing in usual course. NOTICE C.C. No. 194 of 2004 Dispensing with the presence of Respondents. HIGH COURT Drafted By : USR Drafted On : 19-08-2004 VEJ Dated : 16-08-2004 Note : Post the C.C. along with W.P. 23888/2003 for final hearing in usual course. NOTICE C.C. No. 194 of 2004 Dispensing with the presence of Respondents.