The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Contempt Case No.1101 of 2008 Date: 29.07.2011 Between: Smt.M.Vydehi ..... Petitioner AND 1.Smt.Y.Sri Lakshmi, Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Donthi Reddy Venkat Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, Special GP The Court made the following: Order: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of Order, dated 02-05-2008, passed by this Court in W.P.No.10520 of 2008, by the respondents. This Court, by the above-mentioned Order, while disposing of the Writ Petition, directed that if the petitioner’s application, dated 10-11-2006, was submitted to the Joint Director of Mines and Geology and the same has been forwarded to respondent No.4, the latter shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Purporting to comply with the said Order, respondent No.1 has issued Memo No.5021/M.I (1)/2008-1, dated 20-09-2008, rejecting the petitioner’s application. Terming the said rejection as circumventing the Order of this Court passed in W.P.No.10520 of 2008, the present Contempt Case is filed. At the hearing, Sri Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that respondent No.1 has wilfully and deliberately rejected the petitioner’s application and that therefore, the said action constitutes contempt. Having carefully considered this submission, I am of the opinion that the petitioner failed to make out a case of contempt. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents have not considered the petitioner’s application, dated 10-11-2006, and passed appropriate orders as directed by this Court. It needs to be noted that while giving the direction to dispose of the petitioner’s application, this Court has not adjudicated on the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of mining lease. On the contrary, that issue was left to be decided by the respondents as can be seen from the innocuous direction given by this Court that the petitioner’s application shall be considered and appropriate orders thereon be passed. By mere rejection of the petitioner’s application, respondent No.1 has not committed contempt as she was left with the discretion of passing appropriate order, which may include rejection of the application as well. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this Contempt Case and hence, the same is dismissed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 29th July, 2011 LUR