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. 45 OF 2010 Between: V.Siddaiah ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Prasad Rao, IPS, Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others .... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 45 OF 2010 O R D E R: This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order passed by this Court dated 18.11.2009 in W.P.No.15543 of 2009. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The writ petition was filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not implementing the Circular dated 07.02.1976 with regard to fixation of seniority as arbitrary and illegal. The said writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 20.03.2009 and 14.05.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. It is not in dispute that in compliance with the said order, the 2nd respondent passed an order on 19.12.2009. However, this contempt case is filed contending that the 2nd respondent is not the competent authority to pass the said order and therefore the same cannot be said to be in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.15543 of 2009. Thus it is contended that the respondents are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. On a careful consideration of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.15543 of 2009 and the other material placed before this Court, I am unable to agree with the contention of the petitioner. The whole grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the respondents failed to implement the Circular dated 07.02.1976. Nowhere it was stated that the 2nd respondent had rejected the petitioner’s claim and therefore, an appeal was preferred before the 1st respondent. Hence, the action of the 2nd respondent cannot be held to be contemptuous. Even assuming that the order dated 19.12.2009 is without jurisdiction or illegal, the petitioner ought to have assailed the same by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the order dated 19.12.2009 and it is stated that the same is pending before the 1st respondent. In the circumstances, no further enquiry is necessary and accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. ____________ Date: 08.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd