The pendency of a writ appeal does not absolve the respondents from complying with the court's order, unless a stay of the order has been obtained from the appellate court.

JUDGMENT

Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This Contempt Case is filed under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents/ contemnors for Contempt of Court for willful and deliberate disobedience in not continuing the orders passed by this Court dated 13.04.2022 in W.P.No. 993 of 2011, which reads as follows:

(i) the notification in Roc. No.E10/15204/2010, dated 18.01.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed.

(ii) Consequently, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners on the basis of their appointments vide proceedings No. DP1/189/DPP/2004, dated 20.06.2005.

2. Heard Mr. K.K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/ contemnors.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners submitted a representation dated 18.05.2022 duly informing the orders of this Court dated 13.04.2022. But the respondents did not take any action for regularization of the services of the petitioners so far and failed to comply with the orders of this Court willfully and deliberately. Hence this Contempt Case came to be filed.

4. Per contra, the 2nd respondent, who is Executive Officer, T.T.Devastanams, Tirupati filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the contempt affidavit and mainly contended that as against the orders of this Court dated 13.04.2022 in W.P.No. 993 of 2011, the respondents preferred Writ Appeal No. 614 of 2022 on 20.06.2022 before this Court, which is pending. In view of pendency of said Appeal, the respondents have not been complied with the order of this court. It is further contended that this Court did not fix any time limit for compliance of the orders dated 13.04.2022. Normally, under the Writ Rules, if no time limit is fixed for implementation of any order passed by this Court, it is stipulated that two months time will be available for implementing any Court Order. Therefore two months period available for implementation of the orders of this Court was to expire on 13.06.2022. The Contempt Case was filed on 16.06.2022, which is within 3 days from the date of expiry of two months period. The Executive Officer of T.T.D shall be the Chief Administrative Officer as per Section 129 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Therefore he is competent person to represent on behalf of the TTD. The other respondents are not proper and necessary parties in the writ petition itself. There are no allegations against the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and that this Court by order dated 08.08.2022 deferred notices to them. Therefore, requested to dismiss the Contempt Case.

5. During hearing learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Modern Food Industries (India) Limited and Another Vs. Sachidanand Dass and Another' 1995 Supp (4) SCC 465 wherein it was held as follows:

'4. ........If, without considering the prayer for stay, obedience to the Single Judge's order was insisted upon at the pain of committal for contempt, the appellants may find, as has now happened, the very purpose of appeal and the prayer for interlocutory stay infructuous. It is true that a mere filing of an appeal and an application for stay do not by themselves absolve the appellants from obeying the order under appeal and that any compliance with the learned Single Judge's order would be subject to the final result of the appeal. But then the changes brought about in the interregnum in obedience of the orrdr under appeal might themselves be a cause and source of prejudice. Wherever the order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and stay of its operation is pending before the Court, it will be appropriate to take up for consideration the prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with the complaint for contempt. To keep the prayer for stay stand-by and t