This contempts case was closed because the petitioner was posted at the depot via an office order. The delay in compliance was viewed as substantial, and the order was not subject of inquiry in this case. It was accordingly closed. No costs.
Contempt Case closed. No costs.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CONTEMPT CASE No.1919 of 2012 in W.P.M.P. No.41653 of 2012
in
WRIT PETITION No.32706 of 2012
Date: February 01, 2013
Between:
P. Radhakrishna . … Petitioner
and
1. Y. Jagadeesh Babu, Regional Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District & another. … Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CONTEMPT CASE No.1919 of 2012
in
W.P.M.P. No.41653 of 2012 in WRIT PETITION No.32706 of 2012
O R D E R:
This Contempt Case was instituted alleging disobedience to the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.41653 of 2012 in W.P. No.32706 of 2012. By the said order, this Court permitted the petitioner to make a detailed representation with regard to his difficulties in being transferred to Paderu Depot and setting forth the reasons for seeking retention at Visakhapatnam Steel City. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam and the Personnel Officer, Office of the Regional Manager,
APSRTC, Visakhapatnam, respondents 2 and 3, were directed to consider the said representation sympathetically in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter within a time frame.
2. It is now stated that by Office Order dated 30.01.2013, the Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, has directed the posting of the petitioner at Visakhapatnam Steel City Depot.
3. In the light of this order, there is due compliance with the order of this Court dated 19.10.2012 passed in W.P.M.P. No.41653 of 2012 in W.P. No.32706 of 2012, albeit with some amount of delay. In the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by any issue arising in the context of the Office Order dated 30.01.2013, he would necessarily have to seek redressal thereof by way of independent proceedings in accordance with law and the same cannot be made the subject matter of enquiry in this contempt case.
4. This Contempt Case therefore does not survive and is accordingly closed. No costs.
_________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: February 01, 2013. BSB
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CONTEMPT CASE No.1919 of 2012 in
W.P.M.P. No.41653 of 2012 in WRIT PETITION No.32706 of 2012
Date: February 01, 2013
BSB
P. Radhakrishna
Y. Jagadeesh Babu
Sanjay Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
