IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

CONTEMPT CASE No.5354 OF 2023

Between:

K.V.V.Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o. late Rama Rao, 75 years, R/o. MIG 260, APHB Colony, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh.

... Petitioner

A n d

• 1. Chevuri Hari Kiran, IAS, Commissioner & Director of Agricultural & Cooperation Department, Old Mirchi Yard, Chuttugunta, Guntur.
• 2. Gopala Krishna Dwivedi, Special Chief Secretary to Government, Agricultural & Cooperation Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

… Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.V.Ramana

Counsel for the Respondents : - - -

This Court made the following:

O R D E R

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

This Contempt petition is filed by the petitioner alleging

wilful disobedience of the Judgment and Order, dated 03.05.2023

passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.12975 of 2017.

Page 2 of 3

2. It appears that the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2008 and filed O.A.No.5945 of 2013 before the Administrative Tribunal to set-aside the 'charge memo' and the 'disciplinary proceedings' with consequential reliefs to make the payment of full pension and all consequential benefits.

3. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. vide Order, dated 29.04.2016. Challenging the same, the respondents in O.A.No.5945 of 2013 i.e., State of Andhra Pradesh and another filed Writ Petition No.12975 of 2017, which has been 'Dismissed' confirming the Order of the Tribunal.

4. The Order of the Tribunal having been confirmed by this Court in the Writ Petition, even if the submission of the petitioner's counsel is that the Order of the Tribunal has not been complied with by the respondents, in our view, the contempt petition for the writ court's order would not lie, as there is no direction issued by the writ court, which can be said not to have been complied deliberately or wilfully, though the consequence of dismissal of the writ petition, confirming the order of the Tribunal, be that the respondents in the O.A., should have complied with the Tribunal's order subject to the challenge to the Writ Court's order.

Page 3 of 3

5. We are not oblivious of the fact that this Court can exercise the contempt jurisdiction with respect to the orders of the Subordinate Courts as well, under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act but, we are not inclined to invoke such jurisdiction in the present matter, for the reason that, for wilful disobedience of the order of the Tribunal, if it is so, the petitioner can file contempt petition before the appropriate forum.

6. Consequently, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach in appropriate proceedings for contempt of the Judgment of the Tribunal if it so occasions, before the appropriate Forum, if so advised, this contempt petition is rejected on the aforesaid ground alone.

7. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

____________________________________

1st March, 2024. DNB