In a contempt petition for alleged disobedience of an interim order mandating the retention of the petitioner's name in an employment list for Gangavaram Port, the Court examined counter-affidavits confirming compliance. The petitioner's claim was rejected as there was no violation.
The contempt case is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA
REDDY
Contempt Case No.1305 of 2009 Date: 12.4.2010
Between:
Surada Ramana, Peda Gantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam.
Petitioner And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its District Collector, Collector Office, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam & District and others.
Respondents
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Contempt Case No.1305 of 2009
ORDER:
This contempt case has been filed by the petitioner in complaining disobedience of the order dated 27.2.2009 passed in WPMP No.5148 of 2009 in W.P.No.3936 of 2009.
The interim order passed on 27.2.2009 reads as hereunder:-
“Learned Government Pleader for Fisheries takes notices on behalf of Respondent-3. Learned Government Pleader for R & B takes notice on behalf of R1 & R2.
There shall be interim direction to the 2nd respondent to retain the name of the petitioner for job in Gangavaram Port from Uttarandra Matsyakara Committee list.”
It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents are not implementing the Court order and that list was already sent to the
4th respondent without including the name of the petitioner in the list of eligible persons for the job in Gangavaram
Port from Uttarandra Matsyakara Committee list.
Notice before admission came to be ordered on 27.10.2009. The respondents 2 & 4 are filed counter affidavits.
It is stated by the 4th respondent in the counter affidavit that the name of the petitioner has been retained pursuant to the interim order dated 27.2.2009 for a job in Gangavaram Port from Uttarandra Matsyakara Committee list.
Para No.4 of the counter affidavit reads as hereunder:-
“In reply to the said allegations, I respectfully submit that this Hon’ble Court by interim order dated 27.2.2009 directed the 2nd respondent to retain the name of the writ petitioner for a job in the Gangavaram Port from Uttarandra Matsyakara Committee list. The interim order clarifies that the directions were issued to the 2nd respondent i.e., the Special Deputy Collector-cum-Special Officer, Gangavaram Port and there was no direction against me. The petitioner with an intention to harass me shown as 4th respondent in the
Contempt Case. Since there is no direction against me, the question of violation of interim order does not arise.”
In the reply affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is
stated as hereunder:-
“In reply to Para 5 of the writ affidavit the averments of the petitioner in regard to implementation of the Court order is not true. In pursuance of the interim orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the then Special Officer (R&R), Gangavaram Port has directed the Gangavaram Port Authorities vide this office letter Rc.No.4/08/SO Dt.15-7-2009 to retain the petitioner’s name in the jobs list of Gangavaram village, after obtaining the legal opinions of the Government Pleader of TR&B., in Lr.No.WP.3936/2009/TR&B., dt. 4-6-2009. The same fact was also informed to the petitioner vide letter R.C.No.4/08/SO, dated 15.7.2009 sent by certificate of posting to Surada Ramana, S/o.Late Demudu, 5-1-20/3, Pedapallipalem, Visakhapatnam-44, on 21-72009. The Director (Corporate affairs), Gangavaram Port Ltd., Visakhapatnam has informed vide his letter dated 30-7-2009 that the petitioner name has been included in the names of Lokayukta selected list and his serial No. is 772. The copies of the above letters are
submitted herewith for kind perusal.”
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record.
The counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents 2 & 4 indicate that the name of the petitioner has been shown in the selection list, and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have violated the interim order passed in WPMP No.5148 of 2009 in W.P.No.3936 of 2009 has no substance.
Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed.
___________________________ (Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy)
Date:12.4.2010 mrb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents violated the interim order dated 27.2.2009 by failing to retain the petitioner's name in the employment list for Gangavaram Port.
Surada Ramana
The State of Andhra Pradesh
B.Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
