HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1698 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner in W.P.No.16579 of 2010 filed the present case alleging violation of the common order dated 13.07.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.16573 and 16579 of 2010, in so far as he is concerend. The grievance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition was with regard to the failure of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in paying amounts towards the increased rates of HSD Oil for his bus, which was given on hire to the APSRTC. This Court, by the common order dated 13.07.2010, disposed of the two identical Writ Petitions directing the respondents to consider the claim in the light of the agreement clause and take a decision accordingly. If the APSRTC found justification in the claim, it was directed to pay the amount due to the petitioners in the two cases within a time frame. However, if their requests were negatived, a reasoned order to that effect was directed to be passed and communicated to them within that period. It is stated that the APSRTC issued proceeding dated 23.08.2010 negativing the request of the petitioner in respect of the amounts claimed towards the increased rates of HSD Oil. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that this proceeding does not constitute compliance with the directions of this Court in the common order dated 13.07.2010. It is however to be noticed that this Court did not issue any positive direction to the APSRTC. On the other hand, the APSRTC was given the option to communicate by way of a reasoned order its rejection of the petitioner’s claim, if warranted. That is what the APSRTC has now done. If the petitioner feels that the reasons given by the APSRTC in support of the rejection, as embodied in the letter dated 23.08.2010, are not valid or genuine, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action and cannot be addressed in a contempt case as it does not amount to wilful disobedience or violation of the order passed by this Court. The Contempt Case is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail suitable remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved by the APSRTC’s proceedings dated 23.08.2010. SANJAY KUMAR, J. Date:29.11.2010 usd