1 APHC010315852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1954 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-18 [3483] Sri. Medikonda George, ...Petitioner Vs. Sri Oh D Tirumala Rao Ips retired and Others ...Contemnor(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: THANDAVA YOGESH Advocate for Contemnor: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 5th August 2025 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) This Contempt case is filed under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the willful disobedience of the orders dated 13.11.2024 passed in W.P(PIL).No.177 of 2024. 2. Heard Sri Thandava Yogesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the information furnished by the respondent authorities clearly shows that the respondents have allotted untrained drivers 2 to run the High-end buses and therefore there is deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court dated 13.11.2024 in W.P(PIL).No.177 of 2024. Hence, prayed to punish the respondents/contemnors. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General contended that the material placed by the petitioner nowhere shows that untrained drivers were allotted the run the High-end buses as alleged by the petitioner. As such there is no willful disobedience as alleged by the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the contempt case. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. This Court vide order dated 13.11.2024 closed W.P(PIL).No.177 of 2024 with the following observations: “4. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of one such untrained driver at Vijayawada has resulted in the death of three pedestrians within the premises of the bus station. It is in that regard that we had directed the presence virtually of the Managing Director of the A.P.S.R.T.C. who present today virtually. 5. A statement has been made by the Managing Director of the A.P.S.R.T.C. that Volvo buses are permitted to be driven only by trained drivers who have undergone training. It is stated that as against 107 Volvo buses, there are 479 trained drivers available with the A.P.S.R.T.C. The Managing Director further makes a statement that Volvo buses and other specialized advanced technology buses would be permitted to be driven only by such trained and certified drivers. In that view of the matter, we do not wish to continue the proceedings.” 7. Now the contention of the petitioner is that through the information obtained by him under Right To Information Act, 2005, contrary to the above 3 observations, the authorities have allotted untrained drivers to run the High- end buses thereby putting thousands of lives in dangers. However, the authorities are contending that there is no material placed on record to substantiate the same. 8. Moreover, the information obtained under Right To Information Act, 2005 given by the Public Information Officer(PIO) and Assistant Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Kanigiri dated 17.01.2025 does not meet the requirements to prove that the buses are driven by the untrained drivers. As such there is no material to show that the authorities have willfully flouted the orders of this Court. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any disobedience of the order as alleged by the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of the contempt as mandated by the statutory provisions, this Court is not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J BRS