M Jyothsna vs Sri Punam Malakondaiah Ias
2021 Latest Caselaw 4179 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                        &
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                      CONTEMPT CASE No.292 of 2021
                    (Hybrid Hearing Through video conferencing)

M. Jyothsna D/o. M. Syamala Rao,
Aged about 27 years, Occ. Un-Employee,
R/o. Flat No.465, 9th Lane, P.N. Colony,
Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, A.P.
                                                             .. Petitioner

                                      Versus
Sri Punam Malakondaiah (IAS),
Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry,
Dairy Development and Fisheries Department,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, A.P.,
and others.
                                                              .. Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner           : Mr. M. Pitchaiah

Counsel for the respondents          : Mr. N. Aswartha Narayana



                                  ORAL JUDGMENT

                                  Dt: 22.10.2021


(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This contempt case has been preferred alleging wilful violation of the

order dated 03.01.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21610 of 2019.

2. By the aforesaid order, this Court directed that the interim order

dated 13.12.2018 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in

O.A.No.2649 of 2018 be implemented within a period of two months from

the date of communication of the order, if the same was not already

implemented or any adverse order was not passed subsequently. This Court

also granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the

authorities for the relief prayed in the aforesaid O.A. and directed the

authorities to consider the same in accordance with law.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, at paragraph No.8,

it is stated that the representation dated 10.02.2020 submitted by the

petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court was rejected by the 2nd

respondent, vide order bearing Endt.No.4517/BII/2020 dated 09.03.2021.

4. As the 2nd respondent has passed orders on the representation of the

petitioner, this contempt case need not be pursued any further. The

petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of rejection passed by the

authorities in appropriate proceedings.

5. However, Mr. M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits

that the respondent authorities have taken more than one year to comply

with the order of this Court and, therefore, appropriate action has to be

taken against them for not complying with the order within reasonable time.

6. It is true that there is some delay on the part of the respondents in

complying with the order of this Court. But, the delay does not appear to

have been caused with a mala fide intention to defeat the rights and interest

of the petitioner. Therefore, the delay in complying with the order cannot be

construed as contempt committed by the respondent authorities. However,

we observe that the authorities shall be diligent in complying with the orders

of the Court.

7. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. No costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                            C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

                                                                           IBL