Setty Sankar Babu, Guntur Dist. v. E. Murali, Guntur Dist.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1602 OF 2017 O R D E R :

Alleging violation of the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by this Court in WP.No.29710 of 2016 wherein this Court directed the 3rd respondent therein to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of two months.

Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent stating that the order is complied with and appeal filed by the petitioner is disposed of vide proceedings in Rc.No.164/2016-E, dated 08.09.2017. Even according to the counter affidavit, though enquiry was concluded in December, 2016 by recording statements, the order is passed in September, 2017 i.e. after a lapse of nine months. When the respondents failed to do their duty, petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition and this Court issued direction to the respondents. If respondents are again allowed to take the same plea, no purpose would be served to the litigant public in coming to the Courts to obtain orders. Therefore, reasons given for the delay in disposing of the appeal of the petitioner in paras 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit that the respondent was busy with various projects, cannot be accepted.

If the respondent feels the other duties important than implementing the Court order, it amounts to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Court orders. However, since the order is

implemented by the respondents, though with a delay, the Contempt Case is closed. But, the respondent is warned to be careful in implementing the Court orders in future. No order as to costs.

In view of the above, the Head of the Department is directed to sensitise the respondents for implementing the Court orders within time fixed by Court.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the contempt case, shall stand closed. _____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 21.02.2018 Note: Office to communicate this order to the 1st respondent in the Writ Petition.

B/o t k