THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Contempt Case No. 1810 of 2009 Date: 18.11.2011 Between: M.Upender Reddy, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And T.Hanumantha Rao and another. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Contempt Case No. 1810 of 2009 O R D E R : This contempt case is filed with a prayer to punish the respondents for the alleged disobedience of the order of this Court dated 16.11.2009 in W.P.No.22520 of 2009. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. W.P.No.22520 of 2009 was filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 2nd respondent herein in not holding the enquiry as per the established principles of law was arbitrary and illegal and seeking further direction to order a fresh enquiry by appointing a new enquiry Officer. Having taken note of the fact that the petitioner had earlier filed a representation, this Court without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 19.05.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks. Till such time, the 2nd respondent was directed not to proceed with the enquiry. It is alleged in this contempt case that though the said order was brought to the notice of the respondents, the respondents went ahead with the enquiry. Subsequently, by order dated 02.12.2009, the petitioner’s representation dated 19.05.2009 was rejected and the said order was communicated to the petitioner by RPAD and it was received on 15.12.2009. The petitioner also came to know that the enquiry was closed and an order was passed by the Enquiry Officer on 14.12.2009. Hence, the present contempt case alleging that the action of the respondents amounted to contempt of Court. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that the order of this Court dated 16.11.2009 was received by him on 26.11.2009. By that time, the enquiry was adjourned to 14.12.2009 since the petitioner failed to appear before the 2nd respondent-Enquiry Officer on 06.11.2009 and also on 25.11.2009. It is further explained that on account of the absence of the petitioner, no enquiry proceedings were held on 06.11.2009 or 25.11.2009. After receiving the order of this Court on 26.11.2009, the petitioner’s representation dated 19.05.2009 was considered and disposed of on 02.12.2009 much before the expiry of the two weeks time granted by this Court. Even according to the petitioner, the representation of the petitioner dated 19.05.2009 was considered and disposed of by order dated 02.12.209. The respondents had proceeded with the enquiry and passed a final order on 14.12.2009 only after disposal of the petitioner’s representation dated 15.12.2009. May be that the 1st respondent’s order dated 02.12.2009 was received by the petitioner on 15.12.2009, after passing the final order on 14.12.2009, however, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the respondents had deliberately acted in disobedience to the orders of this Court. Hence, it is not a fit case to take cognizance under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 18.11.2011 KLP