APHC010500452022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3686/2022 Between: C.Srinivasulu ...PETITIONER AND Sri T M Rehman and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. N RANGA REDDY (SC MC RSEEMA SPSR NLR) The Court made the following Order: 1. Heard both sides and perused the record. 2. A perusal of the record shows that vide order, dated 23.04.2021 in the Writ Petition NO.7791 of 2021, this Court disposed of Writ Petition with a direction to 4th respondent therein i.e., Public Information Officer under the R.T.I. Act, 2005- cum-Town Planning Officer, Kadiri Municipality, Ananthapuramu District, to furnish information sought by the petitioner within four weeks from the said date, if the said information is available with 4th respondent’s office therein. If the said information is available with any other office which is under the control of 4th respondent therein, it is directed to call for such information subject to permissibility under the R.T.I. Act and furnish the information within four (04) weeks. Alleging willful disobedience of the said Order, the present Contempt Case is filed. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 4th respondent therein had not furnished the information within the stipulated time, as directed by this Court, however, the information was furnished after lapse of eight (08) months. 4. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed by 1st respondent that the entire staff in the office was involved in relief/preventive operations, supervision of Covid-19 Pandemic and taking the infected persons to quarantine etc. it is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the relevant papers/file were not traced out and there was dearth of staff and that the delay is not intentional. The respondent No.1 offered unconditional apology for the delay in furnishing the information. 5. It is not disputed that the information as directed by this Court has been furnished to the petitioner, however, there occurred some delay in furnishing the same. The delay has been satisfactorily explained by 1st respondent in his counter-affidavit. In view of the same, this Court finds no willful disobedience in complying the order passed by this Court. 6. In view of the same, Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Contempt Case shall stand closed. ___________________________ K SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date: 21.03.2025 PKR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY 68 CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3686/2022 Date: 21.03.2025 PKR