THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.256 of 2010 Date: 08.07.2011 Between: N.Brahmaiah, Mahabubnagar District. …Petitioner And Sri A.Devasahayam, Achampet. …Respondent THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.256 of 2010 O R D E R: This contempt case is filed to punish the respondent for the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 15.10.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.27295 of 2009 in W.P.No.20977 of 2009. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The petitioner is working as a Driver in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Alleging that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities while conducting the bus on 18.07.2009, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner while submitting his explanation to the charges framed against him, made a representation dated 27.08.2009 requesting the respondent- Corporation to furnish certain documents and also to summon the five passengers in the bus for examination to defend his case. Alleging that the respondent-Corporation failed to consider his representation dated 27.08.2009 he filed W.P.No.20977 of 2009. By order dated 15.10.2009, this Court in W.P.M.P.No.27295 of 2009 in W.P.No.20977 of 2009, passed the following order: “Notice. There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 27.08.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one week from the date of receipt of this order.” This contempt case has been filed alleging that the respondent has been proceeding with the enquiry without considering the petitioner’s representation dated 27.08.2009 as directed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.27295 of 2009. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation stating that in compliance with the direction of this Court letters were issued summoning the witnesses named in the petitioner’s representation dated 27.08.2009 and therefore, the allegations in the contempt case are unfounded. The petitioner in his reply affidavit dated 07.11.2010 though did not dispute the fact that the respondent had sent letters to the persons named in his representation, it is contended that the respondent passed a final order without intimating him the date of enquiry. As could be seen from the material placed before this Court, the respondent, having considered the petitioner’s representation dated 27.08.2009, had summoned the persons named in the petitioner’s representation. The said fact was also informed to the petitioner by proceedings dated 26.02.2010. Therefore, the allegation that the respondent had flouted the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.27295 of 2009 is unfounded. Even assuming that the final order said to have been passed by the respondent is erroneous and illegal on any ground whatsoever, since the same gives rise to different cause of action, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same, if aggrieved, by availing the appropriate remedy as available under law. Hence, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J Date:08.07.2011 KLP