APHC010100582016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1017/2016 Between: 1. DULL BANGARI,, E-453798, DRIVER S/O. LATE DULL APPANNA, PADERU DEPOT AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. KOTHAPOLAVARAM, GUDIWADA POST, S. RAYAVARM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI SAMBA SHIVA RAO IPS, THE A.P.S.R.T.C., MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. SRI SUDESH BABU, THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., VISAKHAPATNAM REGION, AT VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 3. SRI PD N K RAJU, THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., PADERU DEPOT, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 take the cognizance of the contempt of this Hon'ble Court committed by the respondents herein in willfully disobeying and not complying with the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court Dt.31-03-2016 in W.P.M.P. No. 9810 of 2016 in W.P.No: 7702 of 2016 by his lordship Hon'ble Justice Sri. A V SESHA SAI Baru, and to punish the contemnors as per the provisions of the contempt of court Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 2 1. The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the interim orders dated 31.03.2016 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 9810 of 2016 in W.P. No. 7702 of 2016. 2. In view of the closure of the main Writ Petition, Sri Sk. Parveen, learned counsel representing Sri S. M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner does not want to pursue the present Contempt Case. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, representing the respondents, placed before this Court a copy of the proceedings dated 15.06.2016 issued by the Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam (2nd respondent), and submitted that, after the passing of the interim orders dated 31.03.2016 in W.P.M.P. No. 9810 of 2016 in W.P. No. 7702 of 2016, the respondent authorities considered the case of the petitioner. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to alternative employment at this stage, i.e., after a belated period of ten (10) years from the date he was declared medically unfit, and also for want of proper recommendations from the Medical Board. 4. Recording the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Contempt Case shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 19th February, 2026 cbn 5 225 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT CASE No.1017 of 2016 19th February, 2026 cbn