APHC010595142023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6417/2023 Between: 1. SHAIK MAHAMMAD ALI, S/O S.MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. WATCHMAN, RESIDENT OF RAYAVARAM VILLAGE AND POST, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI K SANTHOSA RAO, CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER/ OANDM, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED,19-13-65/A SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, TIRUPATI-517 503, TIRUPATI DISTRICT CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 14/08/24 VIDE IA NO-1/24 IN CC NO-6417 OF 2023 2. SRI SANGADALA RAMANA, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, APSEB OPERATION CIRCLE, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. SRI YERRAPU CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,APSEB OPERATION DIVISION, RAYAC ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. SRI RAMESH BABU, ASSISTANT ENGINEER,APSEB OPERATION DIVISION, T.SUNDUPALLI ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to direct notice to the respondents and punish them 2 under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful violation of the orders of this Honourable court passed in W.P.No.25887/2023 dt.05-10- 2023 by his Lordships Justice Vcnkateswarlu Nimmagadda under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to dispense with the filing of Certified copy of the order passed in W.P.No.25887/2023, dt.05-10-2023 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the cause title by incorporating the present address of the 1st respondent as “Sri K.Santhosa Rao, Chief General Manager /O&M, Southern Power Distribution Company Limited,19-13-65/A Srinivasapuram Tiruchanoor Road, TIRUPATI - 517503, Tiruapti District in the place of “Sri K.Santhosa Rao, Chief General Manager/OfisM, Tirupati, Tirupati District” in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL) 2. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6417/2023 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents violated/disobeyed the order of this Court dated 05.10.2023. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the contempt case is not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.467 of 2023 and also pursuant to the suppression of material facts while inviting the order of this Court at the admission stage. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter-affidavit of respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is admittedly an outsourced employee appointed by his contractor. In view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.467 of 2023, there is no privity of contract between APSPDCL as a corporation and an outsourced employee. As such, the petitioner has no vested or statutory right against the corporation. Further the petitioner defrauded this Court by concealing the fact that the candidature of one Kalluri Naveen Kumar was forwarded by his contractor/employer vide letter dated 01.09.2023 along with his educational qualifications and the same was forwarded to the Superintending Engineer vide 4 letter dated 26.09.2023. Subsequently, the Superintending Engineer forwarded for further action to Chief Engineer of APSPDCL vide letter dated 27.09.2023 and all the procedural formalities were completed even prior to the order of this Court. The employer of the petitioner is also a necessary party for adjudicating the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the writ petition on 03.10.2023 and this Court inclined to pass an order dated 05.10.2023 in terms of order dated 03.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.14292 of 2020. Further the order copy was supplied belatedly to act upon, only after appointment of shift operator by name K.Naveen Kumar. As such, the petitioner approached this court with unclean hands by suppressing the facts and this court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage itself, as such no sufficient opportunity was available with the respondents for filing their submissions. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted a memo dated 19.01.2024, wherein the watchmen were given preference while considering the filling up of the post of the shift operator. 6. The order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14292 of 2020, as extracted hereunder: “The word „watchmen‟ referred in clause (2) is on permanent basis or an outsourcing basis is not clear. Anyhow, these petitioners are only a watchmen working on outsourcing basis. The watchmen referred in clause (2) appear to be permanent watchmen. In any view of the matter, respondent authorities are directed to consider the candidature of these petitioners strictly adhering to memo dated 19.01.2014, subject to their eligibility, if the 5 watchmen referred in clause (2) is inclusive of watchmen working on outsourcing basis With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsel. No costs.” 7. On perusal of the order of this Court, it appears that even though the petitioner working as a watchman on the basis of outsourcing, for appointment of regular post the petitioner is eligible to consider as shift operator pursuant to the memo dated 19.01.2024. Moreover, the memo dated 19.01.2024 do not specify any exclusivity in respect of consideration of watchmen, who are working on basis of outsourcing. 8. On the other hand, the definition under Clause 2 in respect of watchmen does not clarify whether the person working as a watchman is permanent or outsourcing basis. However, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his candidature, if he is otherwise eligible for appointment of shift operator. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that before filing the writ petition itself the employer of the petitioner referred one K.Naveen Kumar, who is also working as watchman for the post of shift operator, the same was considered and appointed on 27.09.2023, which is prior to the order of this Court. The order of this court was passed on 05.10.2023. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had suppressed the material fact that post of shift operator was already filled up with one K.Naveen Kumar is visible and confirmed. It is further observed that the respondents established suppression of material fact by the petitioner, while inviting the order of this Court in respect of 6 post of shift operator which was already filled up. In view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, which compelled this court to conclude that there is neither violation nor disobedience on the part of the respondents. 9. Accordingly, 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 18.09.2025 TTPPSS 7 269 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6417/2023 18.09.2025 TTPPSS