THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1760 of 2008 Dated:10th August, 2009 Between: J.Abhinav Pratap …Petitioner and 1. Sri Balaramaiah, Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad rep. by its Secretary and others. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1760 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents complaining disobedience of the order dated 23.09.2008 passed in WPMP No.18164 of 2008 in WP No.10606 of 2008. 2. Form-I Notice came to be issued on 16.03.2009. Thereafter the contemnor filed C.A.No.278 of 2009 to dispense with his presence on 17.04.2009. The said application came to be allowed on 09.04.2009. 3. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter- affidavit that the petitioner resorted to certain malpractices and thereupon as per the recommendations of the Malpractice Scrutiny Committee, a show- cause notice dated 21.07.2008 has been issued to the petitioner and since the petitioner refused to receive the said show-cause notice, the Principal of the College served the show-cause notice on the petitioner’s father i.e. Sri J.Anjaiah on 30.07.2008. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner offered his explanation dated 04.08.2008 and as his explanation was found not satisfactory, final order came to be passed on 20.09.2008 debarring him from five subsequent examinations i.e. from IPA.S.E. May/June, 2008 to I.P.A.S.E. May/June, 2010 and he will be permitted to appear for the Intermediate Public Examinations from IPE March, 2011. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent issued the proceedings putting ante-date and therefore, as on the date of the filing of the Contempt Case, the order passed by this Court remained unimplemented and in which case, the 1st respondent is liable for punishment for disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that as per the recommendations of the Malpractice Scrutiny Committee, a show-cause notice dated 21.07.2008 came to be issued to the petitioner and the said notice has been served on the petitioner’s father and thereupon the petitioner submitted his explanation and as the same was found not satisfactory, final order came to be passed on 20.09.2008 debarring him from five subsequent examinations. 7. Since the 1st respondent issued show-cause notice as per the recommendations of the Malpractice Scrutiny Committee, and passed final orders debarring the petitioner for five subsequent examinations, it amounts to substantial compliance of the order passed by this Court and therefore, the cause in this contempt case does not survive. 8. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:10th August, 2009. CS