IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 260 OF 2010 Between: Y.Yesudasu ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, D.C.O. Office, Near RTO Office, NFCL Road, Kakinada, E.G.District 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. 260 OF 2010 O R D E R: This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.37429 of 2009 in W.P.No.28817 of 2009, dated 30.12.2009 directing the 4th respondent as under: “Notice. There shall be a direction to the 4th respondent to pay the subsistence allowance to which the petitioner is entitled to as per law during the period of suspension within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.” A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent stating that in compliance with the order of this Court a cheque for Rs.25,403/- was drawn in favour of the petitioner on 23.01.2010 towards the subsistence allowance payable from 01.01.2009 to 09.12.2009 and the same was sent through registered post. However, the same was returned with an endorsement “addressee absent for seven days”. While stating that there was no deliberate or wilful violation on the part of the 4th respondent to comply with the order of this Court and while tendering unconditional apology for the delay, it is further stated that the 4th respondent was willing to handover the cheque to the writ petitioner through this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent placed before this Court the cheque bearing No.201524 dated 23.04.2010 drawn on the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kakinada, Alamuru Branch for a sum of Rs.25,403/- in favour of the petitioner and the same has been handed over to Sri K.Ananda Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the open Court. Hence, no further enquiry is necessary in the Contempt Case and accordingly, the same is closed. However, if any further amounts are due towards the subsistence allowance, the petitioner is at liberty to make an appropriate representation to the respondents furnishing the details of the same. ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27.04.2010 Ivd