APHC010221812023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4765/2023 Between: Mamuduru Penchalaswamy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND S Satyanarayana Ias and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D V SASIDHAR Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. G RAMANA RAO 2. B S SHIVAJI The court made the following ORDER: 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed this contempt petition alleging that the respondents herein not complied with the order passed in common order dated 12.11.2021 in W.P.No.16796 of 2020 wherein it is stated as under:- “The proceeds received from the tonsuring which shall be at the existing rates shall be shared 50-50 between the temple and the barbers from the services rendered. This interim measure shall only be in place till the rights are auctioned and license is granted. As far as W.P.No.2587 of 2021 is concerned, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners do not have a right to seek a mandamus of the nature sought. 2 This court cannot give a direction to the respondents to frame a scheme for regularization. This is a matter of policy. In addition, no documentary evidence is filed to show that the petitioners were servants of the institution which would enable them or give them a right to demand a mandamus. As stated earlier the rights of the petitioners to claim a relief are matters of evidence and proof. They have to be established in a competent civil court only. Therefore, this writ petition is also dismissed”. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner also preferred writ appeal Nos.834 and 877 of 2024, dated 20.01.2022 wherein this court pleaded to pass an order which states as under:- “9. A combined reading of the above provisions leads us to a conclusion that the issue concerning hereditary rights of the appellants and their entitlement to tonsuring charges being claimed by them, is cognizable by the Endowments Tribunal and as such, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to permit the appellants to approach the Endowments Tribunal. 3 10. Accordingly, the appellants are permitted to avail the remedy before the Endowments Tribunal within a period of two months from today. Till such remedy is availed, the arrangement made under the Circular bearing Rc.No.A1/99732/2018 dated 05.07.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, concerning payment of remuneration to barbers, shall be adhered to. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the Endowments Tribunal, on its jurisdiction being invoked within the time stipulated, shall decide the issue on its own merits and in accordance with law. 11. With the above observations, the writ appeals stand disposed of, modifying the order of the learned single Judge insofar as W.P.Nos.16796 of 2020 and 21185 of 2020 to the extent indicated above”. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while dismissing the writ petition, this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue work till the finalization of the auction. The petitioners were also awarded a share of the income at a 50-50 ratio. However, this order was neither implemented nor carried out. Hence, this contempt case filed. 4 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the rights of the petitioner were indicated by the court below, and the writ petition was rightly dismissed, except for the observation regarding contemporary tonsuring, allowing the petitioners and others to continue till the finalization of the auction. Moreover, the impugned order in the contempt petition was challenged through Appeal Nos. 834 and 877 of 2024 before this Court. This Court, in its order, modified the decision of this court passed by Single Judge, as extracted above. 5. In view of the modification of the order by this court in writ appeal, the order passed by this court passed by Single Judge even no more res integra with the order of the writ appeals, therefore the contempt case against the order of writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, and upon perusal of the material on record, including the judgment rendered in the batch of writ petitions No. 5 16796 of 2020 and 21185 of 2020 dated 12.11.2021, as well as the order passed in the Writ Appeals dated 20.01.2022, this Court is of the considered view that the original order of this court passed by Single Judge has merged with the order passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 834 and 877 of 2024 dated 20.01.2022. As per the doctrine of merger, the original order against which the contempt case is filed no longer exists and cannot be enforced. It is a settled proposition of law that once the doctrine of merger is applicable, the original order ceases to exist and cannot be implemented. 8. In view of the above, considering the modification of the order in the Writ Appeals, the contempt petition is not maintainable. Hence, the contempt case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. __________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 24.02.2025 kkllkk 6 259 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No.4765 of 2023 24.02.2025 kkllkk