APHC010754172014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1171/2014 Between: Lam Ratnaraju, ...PETITIONER AND P V Ramarao ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAVINDER Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER The above contempt case is filed complaining non-implementation of the order dated 13.02.2012 in W.P.No.14926 of 2010 and also order dated 24.06.2013 in C.C.No.277 of 2013. 2. The petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the notification issued vide P2/684(1)10-RM-(G), dated 21.04.2010 for appointment of 244 conductors by overlooking the candidature of the petitioner, who was appointed earlier, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The said writ petition was disposed of on 13.02.2012. The operative portion of the order reads thus: “8. In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the respondents within a period of 02 weeks from today and on such representation, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner, if any further dropouts are there in the earlier notification or if any vacancies are existing in the earlier notification or in any other vacancy if he comes within the Zone of consideration as per the APSRTC Rules.” 4. In the affidavit filed in support of C.C.No.277 of 2013, it was pleaded that the petitioner obtained information regarding the dropouts list as per the notification dated 15.12.2008 under Right to Information Act. The contemnor initially gave information stating that 2 persons have joined duties and later they have resigned. The petitioner sought information regarding dropouts of selected candidates and did not join the duties. The information was furnished on 22.05.2013 stating that 7 candidates out of selected conductor, did not report to duties. Though 10 existing vacancies are available, the respondent did not inform the Court. 5. As seen from the order in the writ petition, the Court directed the petitioner to make a representation within 2 weeks and further directed the respondents to consider the same. However, case at hand, the petitioner without making any representation, filed the contempt case basing on the alleged information. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit consideration and no further orders are required to be passed in this contempt case. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is Closed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD