Wilful disobedience of a court order is a contempt of court and is punishable under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act.

JUDGMENT

Battu Devanand, J. - This Contempt Case has been filed complaining wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in wilful disobeying the implementation of the Order dated 01.11.2019, in W.P.No.34182 of 2012 of this Court.

2. This Court while disposing Writ Petition No.34182 of 2012 on 01.11.2019, passed the following Order:

'Therefore, it is appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the Regional Manager concerned of the APSRTC and produce a photo copy of the Provisional National Trade Certificate possessed by them and upon such production, the Regional Manager concerned shall take the same into account for adding appropriate marks for selection purpose, and pass appropriate orders about their selection or otherwise as Shramiks and communicate the same to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of production of Provisional National Trade Certificate.'

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in compliance of the direction of this Court, the petitioners had submitted Provisional National Trade Certificates along with a representation dated 23.11.2019 to the 2nd respondent, but till now, further action has not been initiated by the respondents and Orders of this Court are not complied with true letter and spirit. The learned counsel contends that as such, the respondents have committed Contempt of Court, which is punishable under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and 2 submits that the 1st respondent is the Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and while disposing the Writ Petition, this Court issued directions to the 2nd respondent i.e., Regional Manager concerned of the A.P.S.R.T.C., and as such the 1st respondent is not proper and necessary party to this Contempt Case, as there is no specific directions issued to the 1st respondent.

5. This Court finds some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. On careful perusal of the directions of this Court passed in the Order dated 01.11.2019, there is no any specific direction to the 1st respondent. In view of the same, in our considered view, the 1st respondent is not proper and necessary party to this Contempt Case. Accordingly, this Contempt Case can be dismissed against the 1st respondent.

6. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed against the 1st respondent.

7. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents, the petitioners had submitted Provisional National Trade Certificates along with a representation dated 23.11.2019 to the 2nd respondent. As per the direction of this Court, the 2nd respondent shall take the Provisional National Trade Certificates produced before him by the petitioners into account for adding appropriate marks for selection purpose and pass appropriate Orders about their selection or otherwise as Shramiks and he has to communicate the same to the petitioners within two weeks from the date of production of the Provisional National Trade Certificates. As both the counsel accepted that the petitioners produced Provisional National Trade Certificates before the 2nd respondent on 23.11.2019, the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the same for adding appropriate marks for selection purpose and pass appropriate Orders about their selection or otherwise on or before 07.12.2019.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the orders passed by the 2nd respondent were sent to the petitioners through registered post and the same was refused by them on 13.12.2022. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent placed zerox copies of the returned Registered Post envelopes to satisfy the Court that they have sent the Orders through Registered Post and the same was refused by the petitioners.

9. We have gone through the same. It appears the Registered Post envelopes contain endorsement of the Postal Department staff mentioning it's refused. As per the se