THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO. 107 OF 2010 Dated 9th July, 2010 Between: The Valandapalem Toddy Tappers Indsutrial Cooperative Societies Limited and another. …Petitioners And Mr. K. Kondala Rao, Prohibition & Excise Superintendent Machilipatnam, Krishna District and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Duba V. Nagarjuna Babu Counsel for the respondent No.1: Sri A. Sudershan Reddy,Addl. Advocate General The Court made the following THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO. 107 OF 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 22.7.2009 in W.P. No.1557 of 2006. After hearing the contempt case in extenso, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for proceeding against the respondents in contempt. This conclusion is arrived at by this Court having taken into consideration the fact that after order dated 1.10.2009 was passed by respondent No.1 and realising that the said order was not in conformity with the spirit of order dated 22.7.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1557 of 2006, corrective steps were taken by passing a fresh order dated 14.4.2010 by respondent No.2. At the hearing, it is explained by Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General that the later order was passed by respondent No.2 because respondent No.1 was promoted as an Assistant Excise Superintendent by then. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that neither of the two respondents had any intention of violating the order of this Court and that the earlier order was passed by respondent No.1, without proper understanding of the order passed in the writ petition. Though, I find that the earlier order passed by Respondent No.1 was not in true spirit of the order passed by this Court in writ petition, in view of the corrective steps taken by passing a fresh order dated 14.4.2010, I am convinced that it is not a fit case for proceeding against the respondents. Respondent No.1 is, however, cautioned to be more careful in future in dealing with the orders of the Courts. The contempt case is accordingly closed with liberty to the petitioners to question the order dated 14.4.2010 in appropriate proceedings, if the petitioners felt aggrieved by the said order. No costs. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 9th July, 2010 pnb