IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1533 OF 2009 Between: K.Bulliswamy ..... PETITIONER AND Sri P.V.Ratna Prasad and another .... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1533 OF 2009 O R D E R: This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order dated 17.08.2009 in W.P.No.16596 of 2009. The writ petition was filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent therein in not implementing the order passed by the Regional Director of Collegiate Education, whereunder the petitioner was directed to be placed as Full Additional Charge Principal of the College as arbitrary and illegal. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 17.08.2009 at the stage of admission with a direction to the 1st respondent to take the necessary further steps to implement the order of the 3rd respondent dated 28.07.2009 forthwith provided the order stands good as on that date. The petitioner alleges that in spite of the fact that the said order was communicated to the 1st respondent- College, the same was not implemented and in the meanwhile, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2009. It is also relevant to note that in the meanwhile, the 1st respondent-College preferred W.A.No.1150 of 2009 against the order of this Court in W.P.No.16596 of 2009 and the said writ appeal came up for hearing on 22.09.2009. By that time since the writ petitioner had already retired from service, the Writ Appeal was disposed of as infructuous. Now this contempt case is filed alleging that the inaction on the part of the respondents in implementing the order, particularly the incorrect statement made before the Division Bench that the order of this Court in W.P.No.16596 of 2009 had already been complied with amounts to Contempt of Court. The petitioner therefore prays to punish the 1st respondent, who is the Correspondent of the College under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Admittedly, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 17.08.2009 and according to the respondents, the copy was received on 21.08.2009. It is stated that since the writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission without hearing the 1st respondent, W.A.No.1150 of 2009 was preferred and even before the said writ appeal could be heard, the writ petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2009. Having regard to the admitted fact that the petitioner had retired from service within two weeks from the date of disposal of writ petition and even before that a Writ Appeal had been preferred by the respondents, I am unable to hold that the 1st respondent had flouted the order in W.P.No.16596 of 2009 intentionally and deliberately as alleged by the petitioner. So far as the false statement allegedly made before the Division Bench is concerned, in case such a representation was deliberately made, it amounts to contempt of the proceedings before the Division Bench and therefore does not require consideration in the present case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. ____________ Date: 08.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd