G. Anjaneyulu vs K Hanimi Reddy And Others

R. Raghunandan Rao, J

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 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 no appointments are being made by the authorities of the Corporation where contract operations were being conducted including those of the petitioner.

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.

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 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.

Aggrieved by the said order, dated 07.10.2015, the respondents therein have filed the present appeal. The appellants contend that they had not interfered with the working of any of the employees of the writ petitioner 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 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 that the petitioner therein was free to carry on his work, subject to the condition that the respondents therein were entitled to take steps if there is violation of the terms of the agreement. In such circumstances, the appellants 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.

In the circumstances, this Contempt Appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 07.10.2015, in C.C.No.2063 of 2015. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.