IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 71 OF 2010 Between: Jyothirmayi DWCUA Mahila Podupu Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary, Yaddanapudi Vijayamma, Weavers Colony, Guntur ..... PETITIONER AND Dr K.Ilambarithi, S/O Kunjitsa Patsam, Aged 31 years, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Guntur, Guntur. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 71 OF 2010 ORDER : This contempt case is filed with a prayer to punish the respondent herein under the Contempt of Courts Act for wilfully and deliberately violating the order dated 08.10.2009 passed in W.P.No.3111 of 2009. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. W.P.No.3111 of 2009 was disposed of with directions as under: “ In the circumstances, the fresh tender notice dated 09.02.2009, which is impugned in this writ petition so far as it relates to package No.57 is concerned, is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent, to reconsider the tender submitted by the petitioner in response to the tender notice dated 07.01.2009 after giving an opportunity to it to meet the alleged non compliance with the guidelines, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said order, the respondent issued an intimation on 05.11.2009 calling upon the petitioner to submit an attested photo copy of the certificate issued by the Project Officer, UPACELL and thereafter, the petitioner gave a reply on 07.11.2009 and ultimately, the respondent by order dated 18.11.2009 rejected the tender filed by the petitioner on the ground that the certificate produced by the petitioner was not a genuine document. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the action of the respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s tender without proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances and without assigning any reasons amounts to violation of the order of this Court and therefore, he is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is also contended that the stand taken in the order dated 18.11.2009 that the certificate placed before this Court in W.P.No.3111 of 2009 was a forged document runs contrary to the admission made by them in the counter affidavit and therefore, on that ground also the order of rejection dated 18.11.2009 amounts to deliberate disobedience to the directions of this Court. I am not inclined to express any opinion as to the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is always open to the petitioner to assail the order dated 18.11.2009 by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law. But, so far as the contempt jurisdiction is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that by virtue of the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the 1st respondent a new cause of action has arisen and if aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to challenge the said order by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law. Hence, it is not a fit matter to take cognisance under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 18.11.2009 by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 02.02.2010 Ivd