Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Southern Power Distribution Company Of ... vs Md. Khaleel Pasha, on 4 November, 2024

Author: Ninala Jayasurya

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

APHC010814202015
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI               [3494]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

               MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
                TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                        PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
       THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

                   LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO:2/2015
Between:
  1. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P.
     LIMITED, REP. BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
     TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (FORMERLY A.P.C.P.D.C.1
                                              A.P.C.P.D.C.1-,
     MINT COMPOUND, HYDERABAD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN &
     MANAGING DIRECTOR)
  2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, (OPERATION CIRCLE),
     APCPDCL, KURNOOL (FORMERLY THE SUPERINTENDING
     ENGINEER (OPERATION CIRCLE), APCPDCL, KURNOOL)
                                            ...APPELLANTS
                            AND
   1. MD KHALEEL PASHA, S/O. ISMAIL SAHEB,
   2. C VENKATESWARLU, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH,
   3. P SURESH BABU, S/O. SHANKARA SHARMA
   4. MD RAFEEQ AHEMED, S/O. NABI SAHEB.
   5. B NARENDRA VARMA, S/O B.C. RAMUDU,
   6. K VENKATESWARLU, S/O. PULLAIAH
                                PULLAIAH,
      RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 6 ARE R/       R/O.

O. C/O. CI.MUKUNDA REDDY, H.NO.8-2--684/I/4/A, DURGA ENCLAVE, ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD.

7. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF TELANGANA LIMITED, (FORMERLY APCPDCL), MINT COMPOUND, HYDERABAD (NOTE: RESPONDENT NO. 7 IS ONLY A FORMAL PARTY) ...RESPONDENTS

LPA_2_2015

To allow the Contempt Case Appeal by suspending the CC NO.546 of 2013, dated 03.07.2014 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(LPAMP 44 OF 2014

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 143 days in filing the LPA and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2014(LPAMP 45 OF 2014

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original copy of the order passed in CC No.546 of 2013, dated 03.07.2014 and pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2014(LPAMP 46 OF 2014

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in CC.No.546 of 2013 dt.03/07/2014

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(LPAMP 2 OF 2015

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim suspension ordered in LPA.MP.No.46 of 2014 in LPA (SR).No.12154 of 2014

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR APSPDCL

Counsel for the Respondents:

1.

2. G MUKUNDA REDDY

LPA_2_2015

The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J)

Heard Ms.Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned counsel for the

appellants. No representation on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed under Section 15 of the

Letters Patent Act, aggrieved by the orders passed by a Learned Single

Judge in C.C. No.546 of 2013 dated 03.7.2014. Through the said order,

the Learned Judge while observing that the appellants are bound to

consider the case of the respondents at least on par with their juniors,

issued directions for passing orders by fixing the notional dates of their

joining, declaration of probation, promotion etc.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the orders

passed in W.P.No.17715 of 1999, Writ Appeal No.1660 of 2000 preferred

by the appellants and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

submits that pending disposal of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, the Distribution Company issued appointment orders to the writ

petitioners, subject to the outcome of the Review Petition, which

ultimately came to be dismissed by an order dated 10.9.2008. Be that as

it may. She submits that alleging that the specific direction in Writ Petition

No.17715 of 1999 to complete the exercise of appointments within a

period of two months was not completed and appointment orders issued

to the respondents/writ petitioners are deemed to have come into force

on the date of expiry of two months period, as per the directions in the

LPA_2_2015

writ petition, that non-implementation of the same amounts to

disobedience of the orders passed in the writ petition, C.C. No.1630 of

2011 was filed. She submits that the Learned Judge while taking note

that the writ petitioners have earlier filed C.C. No.1185 of 2006, which

was closed, and opining that the issue as to the date of appointment has

to be considered in a separate proceedings, closed C.C. No.1630 of

2011, by recording a finding that there is nothing on record to show that

the Authorities have willfully committed any contempt by disobeying the

orders in Writ Petition No.17715 of 1999 and granting liberty to the

petitioners to approach the Court, as observed in the order. She submits

that except a mere observation, no specific directions are issued vide

order dated 13.3.2012 in C.C. No.1630 of 2011. While drawing the

attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 29.10.2012 issued by the

Superintending Engineer (Operations), Kurnool, learned counsel submits

that instead of questioning the said proceedings, the respondents herein

filed yet another Contempt Case vide C.C No.546 of 2013 alleging

deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders dated 13.3.2012 passed

in C.C. No.1630 of 2011, which is not maintainable, more particularly

when there is no specific direction in the first contempt case i.e., C.C.

No.1630 of 2011. Apart from the same, she also contends that there is

no disobedience, much less willful disobedience, on the part of the

appellants/contemnors. While drawing the attention of this Court to the

LPA_2_2015

order dated 03.2.2014 in C.C. No.546 of 2013, she would further contend

that the directions of the Learned Single Judge are beyond the scope of

the orders passed in Writ Petition No.17715 of 1999. She submits that at

any rate the order under challenge is not sustainable in Law and is liable

to be set aside.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the

material on record. At the outset, it would be appropriate to note that a

detailed order DATED 13.03.2012 has been passed by the Learned

Single Judge in C.C. No.1630 of 2011, by considering the submissions

advanced on behalf of both sides. As is evident from the said order, the

Learned Single Judge while recording categorical findings in favour of the

Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company had, however,

made certain observations to the effect that if the Authorities do not

consider the case of the writ petitioners, in terms of the orders in Writ

Petition No.17715 of 1999, they are at liberty to approach the Court. In

fact, the Learned Single Judge in the very same order had categorically

held that the issue with regard to the date of appointment has to be

considered in a separate proceedings. Be that as it may. As rightly

contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that when the

Authorities concerned had issued proceedings rejecting the case of the

writ petitioners vide Proceedings dated 29.10.2012 with reference to

fixation of date of appointment, seniority etc., they ought to have

LPA_2_2015

challenged the said proceedings. However, they filed C.C. No.546 of

2013 alleging non-implementation of the orders dated 13.3.2012 in C.C.

No.1630 of 2011, wherein, further directions were issued and on reporting

compliance of the same, the Contempt Case is closed. Once compliance

is reported, the question of challenging the order passed by the learned

Judge does not arise. Further, while disposing/closing the contempt case

No.546 of 2013, except making an observation that the writ petitioners

are at liberty to approach the Court, no direction was issued and

irrespective of such an observation, the aggrieved party would always

have the right to approach the Court. If the proceedings dated

27.06.2014 issued by Telangana State Southern Power Distribution

Corporation Ltd., which obviously lead to the closing of the contempt case

is without jurisdiction, the same has to be questioned.

5. Having considered the matter in detail, this Court though finds merit

in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, as the

order of the Learned Single Judge in C.C. No.546 of 2013 is complied

with, is inclined to dispose of the appeal, leaving it open to the parties to

work-out their remedies against the proceedings of the concerned

authorities.