Koppusetty Narasingh Rao v. Shri R.Karikal Valavan,

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy and The Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal Contempt Case No.1803 of 2016 Date: 03.11.2016 Between:

Koppusetty Narsingh Rao .. Petitioner and Shri R.Karikal Valavan Prl.Secretary, Govt. of A.P.

MA and UD Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad .. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner :

Mr.P.Raghavender Reddy Counsel for the respondents:

AGP for Services (AP) The Court made the following:

CVNR, J & MSKJ, J CC. No.1803 of 2016 Dt: 03.11.2016 Order : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of Order, dated 10-03-2016, in W.P.No.7339 of 2016, by the respondent.

By the afore-mentioned order, this Court, while declining to interfere with the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), however, permitted the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent and directed the said respondent to take a decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within two months of receipt of such representation. Feeling aggrieved by non-compliance with the said order, the present Contempt Case is filed.

The respondent filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that by Memo No.205553/G1/2016 MA, dated 22-10-2016, he has passed order as directed by this Court. He has sought to explain the delay in passing the order by pleading that due to shifting of the office from Hyderabad to the new capital region and other administrative reasons, the representation of the petitioner could not be disposed of in time.

Mr.P.Raghavender Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in order to escape from the contempt liability, the

CVNR, J & MSKJ, J CC. No.1803 of 2016 Dt: 03.11.2016 respondent has issued the afore-mentioned Memo in a routine manner without application of mind and without assigning any reasons.

Though, prima facie, we feel that the order passed by the respondent is bereft of any reasons whatsoever, since the scope of this Contempt Case does not extend to examining the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the respondent, we refrain from delving into the said aspect. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the afore-mentioned Memo, he is entitled to avail a fresh legal remedy in order to challenge the same.

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Contempt Case is dismissed.

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) _______________ (M.S.K.Jaiswal, J) Dt: 3rd November, 2016 lur