THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.273 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt application is filed under Section 10 to 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the ground that the respondents have discontinued the petitioner as implementing agency for Mid Day Meals in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.14439 of 2007 in W.P.No.11603 of 2007. 2. By the aforesaid order, by way of an interim direction, this Court directed the respondents to continue the petitioner as implementing agency for serving midday meals in the schools in which they were appointed. In this case, it is to be noticed that the Navodaya Mahila Group is the implimenting agency. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that there was a representation dated 04.07.2007 from the Navodaya Mahila Group stating that the petitioner i.e., Smt.M.Rajeswari resigned from the group and requested to allow Smt.E.Kishtamma and P.Jayaprada to work in place of M.Rajeswari on behalf of the agency. It is also stated that Smt.E.Kishtamma and Parala Jayaprada have also filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.2793 of 2008 and this Court issued interim directions dated 14.02.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.3587 of 2008 to continue the petitioners therein as cooks/implementing agencies of Mid Day Meals programme in the schools of their respective villages. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the earlier writ petition i.e., W.P.No.2793 of 2008 was filed without impleading the petitioner herein as a party and obtained the interim directions against the interests of the petitioner herein. If that be so, it is the petitioner to implead herself as a party and seek vacation of the order passed by this Court on 14.02.2008. However, in view of the representation submitted on behalf of the Navodaya Mahila Group dated 04.07.2007 and further orders dated 14.02.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.3587 of 2008, it cannot be said that the action of discontinuance of the petitioner is a deliberate, in violation of directions of this Court. Leaving an opportunity to the petitioner to seek appropriate orders impleading as a party/respondent in W.P.No.2793 of 2008, this Contempt Case is closed. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. __________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J AUGUST 4, 2009 KSH