IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND SIX : PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE: RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No. 672 OF 2006 Between: G. Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Pullaiah. (Other petitioners are not necessary) ….Petitioner AND 1. Sri Venkataramaiah, The Commissioner, Khammam Municipality, Khammam District. 2. Sri Adithyanath, The Commissioner & Director, Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 3. Sri Veena Hish, HMA & UD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4. Sri Giridhar, Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Respondents Contempt Case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to call the Respondents and punish them for their deliberate disobedience in implementation of the orders passed by this Hon`ble Court in W.P. No. 2780 of 1998 dated: 14-06-2005; The Contempt Case coming on for hearing upon perusing the Case and the affidavit filed herein and the order of the High Court dated: 04-06- 2005 and 22-09-2006 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. Sunder Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Special Government Pleader on behalf of the Advocate General for the respondents 2 and 3 and of Sri Polisetty Radha Krishna, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and of the Government Pleader for Finance and Planning for the respondent No. 4, the Court made the following ORDER: “This Court by order in WP. No. 2780 of 1998 dated: 14-06-2005, had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services from the date immediately after completion of five years of service in Khammam Municipality either in the existing vacancies or in the future vacancies. The order of this Court is dated: 14-06-2005. The fact that the order has not been complied with by the respondents is not in dispute. Submissions are made on behalf of the respondents by Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General, the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning and Sri Polisetti Radha Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities. Learned counsel would state that, against the order of the learned Single Judge the first respondent had carried the matter in appeal. Learned counsel would fairly state that no orders, suspending the order of the learned Single Judge, has as yet been passed. Since the order of this Court, violation of which is said to be in contempt, continues to remain in force and has not been complied with, I see no reason to dispense with the presence of the alleged contemnors. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents- contemnors would seek four weeks time to file their respective counter affidavits. List the Contempt Case after four weeks, on which date the respondents-contemnors shall be present in the Court”. SD/- P. EKAMBARAM DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ..2.. To 1. Sri Venkataramaiah, The Commissioner, Khammam Municipality, Khammam District. 2. Sri Adithyanath, The Commissioner & Director, Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 3. Sri Veena Hish, HMA & UD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4. Sri Giridhar, Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. (ADDRESSEES 1 to 4 BY RPAD with a direction to appear before this Court on 28-11-2006) 5. Two CCs to the G.P. for Finance and Planning, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT) 6. Two CCs to the Special Government Pleader, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT) 7. Two CCs to the Advocate General, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 8. One spare copy. Ksv HIGH COURT RRJ DATE: 31-11-2006 NOTE: POST AFTER FOUR WEEKS ORDER C.C. NO. 672 OF 2006 DIRECTION