APHC010073472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 419/2025 Between: 1. P.K. RAJU, S/O. RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. CONDUCTOR, E 753136, MADDELAPALEM CITY DEPOT, APSRTC, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI CH DWARAKA TIRUMALA RAO IPS, VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (A.P.S.R.T.C.) PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT. 2. SRI APPALA NAIDU, DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, APSRTC, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. N ARUNA KUMARI, DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. MADDELAPALEM DEPOT, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT / CONTEMNOR (RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN WP, NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS CC) ...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 summon the respondents/ contemnors and punish them under Sections-10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, for willfully and deliberately violating the orders of this Hon'ble Court dt. 19.11.2024 passed in W.P. 12570 of 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Pamarthi Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The above contempt case is filed complaining non-implementation of order dated 19.11.2024 in W.P.No.12570 of 2024. 3. The petitioner filed the said writ petition seeking the following relief: “… to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to treat the period from 17.2.2023 to 3.12.2023 during which period, the petitioner was kept out of duty, in spite of clear directions of the Honourable Court suspending the transfer orders, as on duty with all consequential benefits including payment of salaries for the said period, continuity of service, seniority etc., by holding the action of the respondents in not treating the interregnum period from 17.2.2023 to 3.12.2023 during which, the petitioner was kept out of duty, for no fault of him is as illegal, arbitrary …” 4. The said writ petition was disposed of on 19.11.2024 and the operative portion of the order reads thus: “8. However, given the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 20.02.2024 and pass appropriate orders strictly as per rules, within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.” 5. In pursuance of the order in the writ petition, the District Public Transport Officer, Visakhapatnam passed a speaking order vide No.L2/876(04)/2023-DPTO:VSP, dated 04.01.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the speaking order passed by the 2nd respondent on 04.01.2025 is not in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12570 of 2024 dated 19.11.2024. 7. Since a speaking order was passed by the 2nd respondent-District Public Transport Officer, Visakhapatnam, in pursuance to the order of this Court, the petitioner, if aggrieved by the same, has to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. 8. In J.S.Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and Others 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus: “….once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of 1 (1996) 6 SCC 291 action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. …” 9. Given the expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, since a speaking order was passed on 04.01.2025, this Court does not find any violation of order dated 19.11.2024 in W.P.No.12570 of 2024. 10. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is Dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD