THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.331 of 2010 (Dated : 06-10-2010) Between: GT Narayana Educational Society …Petitioner A n d The District Educational Officer and others ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.331 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 19-06-2008 passed in W.P.No.7635 of 2008. 2. The petitioner-society is running Upper Primary School in Telugu Medium from the academic year 1999-2000 and in English Medium from the academic year 2003-2004 at Kothakota. The petitioner-society submitted representation on 23.7.2007 to the Regional Joint Director, School Education, Hyderabad for up- gradation of the school from upper primary school to High School. There being no action on the said representation, the petitioner- society filed Writ Petition No.7635 of 2008. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 9.6.2008. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “ The only grievance of the petitioner-society is that the representation submitted by it for up-gradation of its school from upper primary school to high school remained unattended. Such is the situation; I deem it appropriate to direct the Regional Joint Director, School Education-2nd respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner-society and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law with regard to up-gradation of the petitioner-Society’s school from upper primary school to high school, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”. 3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that its representation has not been disposed of, despite the direction given by this Court in the writ petition. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 15.3.2010. The 2nd respondent filed counter. It is stated in the counter that the representation of the petitioner-society has been considered and appropriate proceedings have been issued on 18.8.2010. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that delay in disposing of the representation has been caused because of the misplacement of file, for which memos have been issued to the Assistant and the concerned Assistant has given his explanation. The proceedings initiated against the Assistant ultimately ended with a severe warning to him. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is gross negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in complying with the direction given by this Court in the writ petition, and therefore, the conduct of the 2nd respondent in not disposing of the representation of the petitioner-society within the time stipulated in the writ petition amounts to contempt and he is liable to be punished. 7. Learned Government Pleader submits that the 2nd respondent took charge as Regional Joint Director, School Education, Hyderabad on 7.9.2009 and soon after his joining, he reviewed the court cases pertaining to the High Court and APAT and noticed misplacement of the file and thereupon, explanation has been called for from the concerned Assistant. Therefore, there is no willful negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in considering the representation of the petitioner-society. 8. I have gone through the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that soon after receipt of the judgment in Writ Petition No.7635 of 2008, report of the Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar has been called for on 20th August, 2008 and the District Educational Officer submitted proposals on 25.8.2008. The said proposals have been verified and certain information has been called for, vide Procs.Rc.No.5835/A2/ 2006, dt.20-8-2008. Subsequently, the file came to be misplaced for which explanation has been called for from V.Suresh, Senior Assistant. 9. The circumstances under which delay occurred in complying with the orders of this Court have been explained by the 2nd respondent in his sworn affidavit. The explanation offered by him is convincing, and therefore, the same is hereby accepted. Since the representation submitted by the petitioner-society has been disposed of by issuing proceedings dated 18.8.2010, nothing survives for adjudication in this contempt case. 10. Accordingly, the Contempt case is closed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.06-10-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.331 of 2010 (Dated : 06-10-2010)