IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY , THE FOURTEENTHE DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1212 of 2011 (Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated 23.08.2011 in WPMP.No.27382 of 2011 in WP.No.22438 of 2011.) BETWEEN: Sunkavalli Rambabu. ... PETITIONER AND Sri Nabi Ahmed, Chairman & Managing Director, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam and four others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S. SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SMT. JYOTHI ESWAR GOGINENI The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging disobedience of the interim order of this Court dated 23.08.2011 by the respondents. 2. Petitioner states that, as per the interim order, he has deposited Rs.7,500/- but the respondents have not complied with the orders as to restoration of power supply to the petitioner. He has paid the amount on 26.08.2011 and states that he gave a notice dated 26.08.2011 requesting the respondents to restore power supply followed by another notice dated 02.09.2011 and as such, he was left with no option but to bring the disobedience to the notice of this Court. 3. Learned standing counsel for the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was availing supply illegally by way of direct tapping and the present contempt case has relevance to WP.No.28577 of 2011 filed by the petitioner herein. It is also alleged that petitioner was given a notice demanding Rs.15,000/- + supervision charges of Rs.50/- towards loss sustained by the respondents on account of mis-utilization of power by the petitioner. The petitioner’s allegation that connection given to the petitioner bear S.C.No.129 was denied on the ground that the said connection was given to an old bore in the land belonging to one P. Venkanna but the said land was acquired by the revenue authorities and the said Venkanna received compensation from the revenue authorities. Petitioner, as a purchaser, from the said Venkanna of Ac.0.54 cents along with S.C.No.129 has dug a bore well in Ac.0.54 cents purchased by him and has been wrongly showing the aforesaid service connection number - S.C.No.129, as petitioner’s connection, though the said bore well did not exist at the time of purchase and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to power supply. The respondents, therefore, claim that it is not possible to supply power, as the connection is not physically available and as such, it is not possible to reconnect power supply as no connection exists on the petitioner’s land. The respondents also deny that there is any deliberate disobedience. 4. On the last date of hearing the matter was heard when the learned standing counsel filed an additional counter affidavit of the third respondent i.e. Divisional Engineer (Operation) by reiterating that the petitioner was not a bonafide consumer as there was neither any connection nor there is any meter to the petitioner and reiterated that the petitioner had earlier resorted to direct tapping of the power supply. It is stated that the vacate stay petition was immediately moved on 29.08.2011 by filing a counter affidavit, whereas this contempt case is filed on 06.09.2011. 5. Learned standing counsel has also brought to my notice, during the hearing, that the main writ petition, being WP.No.22438 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was heard by this court and disposed of on 09.11.2011 with a liberty to the petitioner to pursue WP.No.28577 of 2011 already filed by him questioning the order of the respondents refusing to transfer service connection No.129 from the name of petitioner’s vendor to petitioner. This Court, therefore, observed that unless the petitioner succeeds in the said writ petition, he cannot seek restoration of power supply in his name and accordingly, permitted the petitioner to pursue the said writ petition. Learned standing counsel for the respondents contends that in view of dismissal of the writ petition, the present contempt case does not survive. 6. It is well settled that in contempt proceedings the correctness or legality of the order cannot be gone into nor the dismissal of the writ petition later on or vacation of the said order later on has any effect on the contempt case (see PRITHAWI NATH RAM V. STATE OF JHARKHAND [(2004) 7 SCC 261]). 7. However, from the averments in the counter affidavits, referred to above, it is evident that the interim order, which is subject matter of this contempt, is dated 23.08.2011 and the respondents had filed application for vacating the said order on 29.08.2011. While the said WVMP.No.3305 of 2011 was pending, the petitioner filed the present contempt case on 06.09.2011. Pendency of the vacate petition was not mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the present contempt case, on account of which this Court ordered notice before admission on 09.09.2011. It is also to be noted that pendency of WP.No.28577 of 2011 was also not brought to the notice of this court while dealing with the present contempt case. In view of that, as the entitlement of the petitioner to the said service connection No.129 is the subject matter of WP.No.28577 of 2011, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately disobeyed the interim orders of this Court, as the issue being subjudice before this Court in WP.No.28577 of 2011. 8. On consideration of the entire material, therefore, I am of the view that the disobedience complained of in this contempt case is not deliberate and as such does not warrant initiation of proceedings against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. In the circumstances, the contempt case is dismissed at the stage of notice. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 14, 2011 DSK