THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.215 of 2011 Dated 11th April, 2011 Between: N.Ramakrishnaiah …Petitioner And Shri D.Subashchandra Bose, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Khammam District and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Nagendra Rao Counsel for respondents: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 06.08.2010, in W.P.No.17688 of 2006, whereby respondent No.1 was directed to re-consider the petitioner’s claim for reimbursement of the purported election expenditure to the extent of Rs.1,87,775/-. By a later order passed on 10.12.2010, in W.P.M.P.No.37808 of 2010 in W.P.No.17688 of 2006, this Court has extended the time stipulated by order, dated 06.08.2010, till 31.01.2011. In the present contempt case, the complaint of the petitioner is that despite the orders passed by this Court directing respondent No.1 to re-consider the petitioner’s claim, no action has been taken thereon. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent i.e., the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Khammam District, it is inter alia stated that after this Court extended the time, he has addressed letter, dated 24.12.2010, to the petitioner to furnish all the relevant documents mentioned in the writ petition and that the said letter sent through the registered post has returned on 08.01.2011, with an endorsement ‘refused’. It is further stated that the respondent has got a fresh notice served on the petitioner on 28.01.2011, that in response to the said notice, the petitioner filed representation, dated 12.02.2011, received by the respondent on 15.02.2011, along with three enclosures, which pertain to the notification relating to the administration of Panchayat Raj, a representation dated 31.12.2004 and letter, dated 18.07.2005, addressed by the respondent to the petitioner, but no bills relating to the election expenditure were furnished. In my opinion, the conduct of the petitioner in refusing the registered notice sent by the respondent is abhorrent. Being a former employee, he is not expected to refuse the notice sent by the respondent in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. This shows the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner in trying to shy away from the enquiry. Further, though liberty was given by this Court and an opportunity by the respondent to produce the bills, the petitioner failed to submit any bills justifying the expenditure. In the light of these findings, I do not find any merit in the petitioner’s plea that the respondent has committed wilful violation of the order of this Court. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th April, 2011 VGB