B. Madhusudan, v. Shri Vinodrai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH **** CONTEMPT CASE NO.2088 OF 2013 Between:

B. Madhusudan, Senior Audit Officer (Commercial), Office of the Principal Director of Commercial Audit And Ex-Officio Member, Audit Board, AG's Office Complex, Hyderabad .. Petitioner/Party-in-person and The Union of India through Shri Vinod Rao, Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9-Deendayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi and others .. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCEMENT : 24th JULY, 2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) 1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes/No

2.

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 3.

Whether Their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the judgment?

Yes/No THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.2088 OF 2013

O R D E R

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This contempt case was filed alleging disobedience to the order dated 26.03.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7256 of 2012. The order reads as under:

'Learned counsel for the respondents seeks some time to look into the additional papers filed by the petitioner. He may do so within one week as prayed.

Until the next date of hearing the transfer order of the petitioner is stayed.

List on 9-04-2012.'

The petitioner/party-in-person admits in his affidavit filed in support of the contempt case that he was relieved on 13.04.2012. A copy of the said relief order dated 13.04.2012 is also placed on record. In the light of the aforestated facts, it is clear that as on the date when the petitioner/party-in-person was relieved pursuant to the impugned transfer order, the order passed by this Court on 26.03.2012 was not in operation as it was to have effect only till the next date of hearing, i.e., 09.04.2012.

Upon being asked by this Court, the petitioner/party-in-person conceded that there was no extension of the stay order dated 26.03.2012 either on 09.04.2012 or on any date thereafter. Given the aforestated facts, this Court finds that there is no disobedience, much less willful disobedience, to the order passed on

26.03.2012 in W.P.No.7256 of 2012.

The contempt case is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J ____________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 24TH JULY, 2015 Svv