THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No.750 of 2011 Dated:14.07.2011 Between: M/s.Madras Cements Ltd. … Petitio And Sri Hyma Rao. ... Respond THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No.750 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a reputed cement manufacturing unit. They o dumpers, HM loaders and cranes allegedly put to use in their limestone min In September, 2010, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ranga Reddy District, al with others checked the vehicles and issued show cause notice demanding tax at 7.5%. The petitioner’s explanation that dumpers and cranes w exclusively used in mining did not heed. They then filed an application 21.03.2011 before the respondent herein for necessary redressal, in va Therefore, they instituted W.P.No.7744 of 2011, inter alia, seeking a declara that the vehicles above named stand exempted under Section 10 of the And Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963. By an order dated 01.04.2011 this Court disposed of the writ peti directing the third respondent (respondent herein) to consider the applicatio the petitioner for registration of the vehicles under Section 39 of the M Vehicles Act, 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly submitted necess applications for registration duly complying with the requirements of Rules and 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. After considering the sa the respondent issued an endorsement bearing No.Xndis/A2/NDG/2011, da 12.05.2011, informing that the registration of the vehicles is not possible with payment of tax. Alleging that the same amounts to contempt, the pres contempt case is filed. At the stage of admission itself respondent filed a counter affid justifying the rejection of the request for registration. This according to petitioner’s Counsel amounts to contempt. We are afraid, we do not feel persuaded by the submission. It is settled that when a mandamus is issued to a public authority to consider request of the petitioner for redressal or necessary discharge of statu obligations and pursuant thereto the public authority issues an order, the o itself would give a fresh cause of action and it cannot be said to be a contem the Court (See J.S. Parihar vs Ganpat Duggar[1] and Chotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati[2] that view of the matter, we are not inclined to order rule in this case. I advised, the petitioner may take appropriate steps for challenging endorsement/communication dated 12.05.2011 issued by the respondent. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 14.07.2011 vs [1] AIR 1997 SC 113 : (1996) 6 SCC 291 [2] (2001) 7 SCC 530 : AIR SCW 3208