THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1769 of 2009 Date: 19.01.2010 Between: Mr. D. John Samuel … Petitioner and Sri A.N. Dave, Chairman/Executive Director, N.T.P.C., M.C.H. Complex, R.P. Road, Secunderabad-3. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1769 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) We have heard the petitioner/party-in-person. 2. This contempt case has been instituted complaining, bitterly, that the respondent-Chairman and Executive Director, National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) Limited, Secunderabad, has violated the directions issued by this Court in W.A.M.P.No.2207 of 2009 in W.A.No.268 of 2003 on 21.8.2009. 3. It would be appropriate to notice that the aforesaid W.A.M.P. has been moved by way of review application. That application was heard and, while holding that the order passed in writ appeal does not require re-consideration, this Court reiterated that any representation which the appellant/petitioner might make to the respondent can be considered appropriately. 4. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that on 20.10.2009 the Executive Director, N.T.P.C. Limited, Southern Region, has passed orders rejecting the claims of the petitioner. When once an order has been passed rejecting the claims of the petitioner herein, it is not open for this Court, in a contempt of Court action, to examine the correctness or validity of such an order. The scope of examination in a contempt of Court action is very limited and it has to be confined only to the extent of the alleged violation and, that too, if it is a deliberate and wanton one. We have not found any such violation; muchless deliberate or wanton one, indulged in by the respondent, to prompt us to initiate any action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We, therefore, dismiss this contempt case. 5. Before parting with this case, we must also take into consideration one of the pleas made by the party-in-person herein that he was hard-pressed financially not only for sustaining, but also for fighting the litigation against the mighty N.T.P.C. We have drawn his attention to the provisions made under the Legal Services Authorities Act, which facility the petitioner can avail. 6. With the above observation, the contempt case is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ___________________ D.S.R.VARMA, J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 19.01.2010 NOTE: Issue C.C. by 20.1.2010. (B/O) Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1769 of 2009 19.01.2010 (Msr)