IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 39 OF 2010 Between: T.V.Giriprasada Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Manoj Pande .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 39 of 2010 ORDER : This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 12.11.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.19390 of 2009 in W.P.No.14774 of 2009, which runs as under: “Heard both sides. There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 10.04.2003, 01.06.2005, 23.11.2005, 25.06.2007 and 09.07.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.” Alleging that the respondent failed to comply with the said order and no orders have been passed within the period of two weeks fixed by this Court, in spite of legal notice dated 12.12.2009 got issued by the petitioner, the present contempt case is filed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Chief personal Offier/Information Officer stating that in obedience to the order of this Court dated 12.11.2009, the claim of the petitioner was considered and a detailed order was passed on 22.01.2010 and the same was duly acknowledged by the petitioner on 27.01.2010. A copy of the said order has also been placed before this Court. The respondent, while stating that the delay in complying with the order of this Court was only due to difficulty in tracing the old records pertaining to the selection during the year 1993, rendered his unqualified apology. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Having regard to the order passed on 22.01.2010 in compliance with the order of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.19390 of 2009 in W.P.No.14774 of 2009 and in view of the unconditional apology rendered by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no further enquiry is necessary in the contempt case. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order dated 22.01.2010 is not in accordance with law and therefore, on that ground also the respondent is liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. If aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 22.01.2010 by working out appropriate remedy. However, it is not necessary for this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act to go into the validity of legality of the proceedings dated 22.01.2010. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected and the Contempt Case is closed. No costs. _____________ Date: 02.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd