IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 34 OF 2015 Appeal filed under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971, Aggrieved by the orders of the Learned Single Judge, the Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Rajashekar Reddy in C.C.No.2063 of 2014 dated 07.10.2015 in allowing the Contempt Case and directing the appellants herein imposing the fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 12(1) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three days each for non-implementation of the Orders of the Honourable Court in WP No.6645 of 2014 dated 07-03-2014. by Between: Sri G.Anjaneyulu, S/o Late Subbaiah, aged 50 years Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation) Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited Narasaraopet, Guntur District ...Petitioner/Appellant AND 1. Sri K. Hanimi Reddy, S/o Brahmananda Reddy, Aged 76 years, R/o.Kundurvaripalem Village, Muppala Mandal, Guntur District IN, 2. Sri G.L.V..Prasad Rao, S/o Sambasiva Rao, aged 45 years Assistant Division Engineer (Operation) Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P Limited Sattenapalli, Guntur District ...Respondents/Respondent I.A. NO: 2 OF 2015fAPPL. NO: 1463 OF 2015} Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of operation of Orders dt.07-10-2015 C.C.No.2063 of 2014. passed in Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K. UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B. CHINNAPA REDDY The Court made the following: 1 RRR,J & VJP,J C.A.No.34 of 2015 APHC010654372015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3493] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 34/2015 Between: ...APPLICANT Sri G. Anjaneyulu AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Sri K Hanimi Reddy and Others Counsel for the Applicant: 1.KUDAYASRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.BCHINNAPA REDDY The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The power transmission and power distribution companies, in the State of erstwhile united Andhra Pradesh, had been engaging contractors, to operate and maintain the 33/11 K V sub-stations of these transmission companies and distribution companies. For the purposes of operating and maintaining these sub-stations, contractors were permitted to engage staff as per their requirement, subject to the condition that the persons meet the required qualifications and eligibility criteria. One of the said contractors had RRR,J & VJP,J C.A.No.34 of 2015 approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.6645 of 2014, contending that the officers of the Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, were interfering in the selection of contract workers and such an intervention was affecting the services that had to be given by the petitioner. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh after considering the submissions made by the petitioner, by an order dated 11.02.204, had disposed of the Writ Petition, after recording the statement of the learned Standing Counsel of the Corporation that appointments are being made by the authorities of the Corporation where contract operations were being conducted including those of the petitioner. no 2. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition recording the said submission with an observation that the petitioner was entitled to continue work by engaging operators as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and it would be open to the authorities of the Corporation to take steps if there is any violation of such terms and conditions of the agreement. 3. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed C.C.No.2063 of 2014 complaining that he was not being permitted to appoint persons of his choice and that the respondents, in the contempt case, were forcing him to appoint some other persons. The respondents in the contempt case took the stand that they were not interfering in the appointment of persons, but had objected 3 RRR,J &VJP,J C.A.No.34 of 2015 to the appointment of one O. Narasimha Rao on the ground that a person named M. Ramesh had already been appointed and was working with the petitioner and as such, the respondent in the contempt case were not of contempt of Court. A learned Single Judge after considering the submissions made by both sides had held that the respondents therein were guilty of contempt of Court as they had deliberately violated the orders of the Court, and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of the respondents therein. 4. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 07.10.2015, the respondents therein have filed the present appeal. The appellants contend that they had I \ not interfered with the working of any of the employees of the writ petitioner i and that the orders of the learned Single Judge require to be set aside. A perusal of the case and counter case of both sides makes it 6. clear that the entire dispute rotates around the requirement of a second operator when M. Ramesh, who was engaged by the writ petitioner, was already working as an operator. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the requirement of Sri O. Narasimha Rao, could not have been gone into by the appellants and amounts to violation of the orders of the Court, require reconsideration. The orders of the learned Single Judge, in the Writ Petition, was 7. that the petitioner therein was free to carry on his work, subject to the 4 RRR,J & VJP,J C.A.No.34 of 2015 condition that the respondents therein were entitled to take steps if there is violation of the terms of the agreement. In such circumstances herein, who were officers the Corporation, cannot be said to have violated the orders of the Court if they had sought enforcement of the terms and conditions of the agreement. the appellants 8. In the circumstances, this Contempt Appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge C.C.No.2063 of 2015. There shall be no order as to costs. dated 07.10.2015, in As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Sri K. Hanimi Reddy, S/o Brahmananda Reddy, Aged 76 R/o.Kundurvaripalem Village, Muppala Mandal, Guntur District Sri G.L.V.Prasad Rao, S/o Sambasiva Rao, aged 45 years Assistant Division Engineer (Operation) Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P Limited Sattenapalli, Guntur District One CC to Sri. K Udaya Sri, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. B Chinnapa Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies To, 1. years. 2. 3. 4. 5. PR sree / HIGH COURT DATED:24/01/2025 i JUDGMENT CA.No.34 of 2015 c* 0 S FFI ?»?’) »« ■ * Current becuon ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS