THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CONTEMPT CASE NO.1492 OF 2011 O R D E R : This Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is filed with a prayer to punish the respondent for alleged violation of the order, dated 27.04.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11653 of 2011. 2. The petitioner herein filed W.P.No.11653 of 2011, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent in releasing the advance from the Provident Fund of the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to release an advance of Rs.1.00 lakh from the Provident Fund by way of withdrawal as contemplated and permissible under Rule 15 of General Provident Fund (Central Services ) Rules 1960 (for short, ‘GPF Rules’) on the application made by the petitioner on 16.12.2009 and on later three dates i.e., on 25.03.2010, 24.04.2010 and 27.09.2010. 3. This Court, by order, dated 27.04.2011, disposed of the Writ Petition, which reads as under: “As seen from the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner sought to grant Rs.1.00 lakh for the purpose of chilidren’s education expenses. The application forwarded to the RCCMPFO, Margherita. Since the petitioner was placed under suspension, respondent No.1 has to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law whether to grant or not to grant provident fund. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to file necessary application before respondent No.1 along with the proof showing the incurring of educational expenses to the children and thereafter, respondent No.1 shall pass orders in accordance with Rule 15 of the G.P.F. Rules within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of making such an application.” 4. The respondent-Commissioner filed counter-affidavit stating that in pursuance of the direction of this Court, the petitioner has not filed any proof regarding the expenses incurred for his son’s education and therefore, it could not pass any orders. In reply also the petitioner has not stated the expenses incurred towards the higher education of his son. 5. Under Rule 15 (a) of GPF Rules the withdrawals under GPF may be allowed for meeting the cost for higher education, including where necessary, the travelling expenses of the subscriber or any child of the subscriber. But, Rule 15 is controlled by Rule 16, which says that the withdrawal to a subscriber under sub-clause (a) of Clause (A) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 15, may be permitted annually so long as the concerned child of the subscriber continues to pursue the course. The petitioner has not made the application when his son is prosecuting the studies for the academic year 2008-2009. For pursuing higher education, the petitioner seems to have obtained a loan from the Bank. To discharge the same, the application is filed under Rule 15 of the GPF Rules, which does not indicate that the said course is open to the subscriber to withdraw the amount for the purpose of repayment of loan. Therefore, the question of contempt does not arise in view of the fact that the petitioner failed to show that his son incurred expenses for higher education during the relevant year of admission. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J DECEMBER 19, 2011. YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CONTEMPT CASE NO.1492 OF 2011 Between : B.Loka Reddy ... PETITIONER A N D Sri A.N.Battacherjee …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CONTEMPT CASE NO.1492 OF 2011 19.12.2011 YVL