ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri. P.V. Krishnaiah, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the record. 2. The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking the following reliefs: “… pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Directions, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: i. Declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not listing the Contempt Cases filed by the Petitioners, i.e., (1) C.C. No. 753/2018 in W.P.M.P. No. 54850/2017 in W.P. No.44246/2017, (2) C.C. No 649/2018 in I.A. No. 1/2018 in W.P. No. 1024/2018 and (3) C.C. No. 708/2018 in W.P.M.P. No 54855/2017 in W.P. No. 44251/2017 before the appropriate Bench is nothing but denial of speedy justice to the Petitioners and violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as highly arbitrary, illegal, malafide, unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and subversive of rule of law; ii. Declaring the action of the unofficial Respondents, i.e., 5th and 6th Respondents in insisting the Petitioners to withdraw the Contempt Cases filed by the Petitioners, i.e., (1) C.C. No. 753/2018 in W.P.M.P. No. 54850/2017 in W.P. No. 44246/2017, (2) C.C. No. 649/2018 in I.A. No. 1/2018 in W.P. No. 1024/2018 and (3) C.C. No. 708/2018 in W.P.M.P. No. 54855/2017 in W.P. No. 44251/2017, as highly arbitrary, illegal, malafide, unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and subversive of rule of law; and issue consequential directions (a) Directing the 1st Respondent to forthwith post the Contempt Cases filed by the Petitioners, i.e., (1) C.C. No. 753/2018 in W.P.M.P. No. 54850/2017 in W.P. No. 44246/2017, (2) C.C. No. 649/2018 in I.A. No. 1/2018 in W.P. No. 1024/2018 and (3) C.C. No. 708/2018 in W.P.M.P. No. 54855/2017 in W.P. No. 44251/2017 before the appropriate Bench; (b) Direct the 2nd Respondent to forthwith conduct enquiry with regard to the action on the part of the unofficial Respondents, i.e., 5th and 6th Respondents in insisting the Petitioners to withdraw the Contempt Cases, i.e., (1) C.C. No. 753/2018 in W.P.M.P. No. 54850/2017 in W.P. No. 44246/2017, (2) C.C. No. 649/2018 in I.A. No. 1/2018 in W.P. No. 1024/2018 and (3) C.C. No. 708/2018 in W.P.M.P. No. 54855/2017 in W.P. No. 44251/2017 filed by the Petitioners which are pending before the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, and take appropriate further action based on the enquiry report; or alternatively The Honourable High Court may be pleased to appoint any independent authority including any Judicial Officer to conduct enquiry with regard to insisting the Petitioners to withdraw the Contempt Cases, (1) C.C. No. 753/2018 in W.P.M.P. No. 54850/2017 in W.P. No. 44246/2017, (2) C.C. No. 649/2018 in I.A. No. 1/2018 in W.P. No. 1024/2018 and (3) C.C. No. 708/2018 in W.P.M.P. No. 54855/2017 in W.P. No. 44251/2017 filed by the Petitioners which are pending before the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, and take appropriate action; And pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”. 3. 3. As seen from the prayers made, the Writ Petitioners are seeking a direction, to be given to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi for posting of contempt cases filed by the Petitioners and also to direct the 2nd Respondent i.e., Chief Secretary to State of Andhra Pradesh to conduct an enquiry with regard to the action taken on the part of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in insisting the Writ Petitioners to withdraw the contempt cases filed by them. 4. The averments in the affidavit filed would show that, C.C. No. 753 of 2018 was filed for not implementing the order passed in W.P.M.P. No. 54850 of 2017 in W.P. No. 44246 of 2017; C.C. No. 649 of 2018 was filed for not implementing the Orders passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2018 in W.P. No. 1024 of 2018; and C.C. No. 708 of 2018 was filed for not implementing the orders passed in W.P.M.P. No. 54855 of 2017 in W.P. No. 44251 of 2017. 5. Sri. P.V. Krishnaiah, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, though, sought for two reliefs in the Writ Petition, but pressed for the first relief, namely, a direction to High Court of Andhra Pradesh for posting of the contempt cases referred to above before the court, for their disposal. 6. It is to be noted here that the orders impugned in the contempt cases were passed in the combined High Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh i.e., prior to bifurcation of the High Court for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Having regard to the fact that the cause of action arose in the State of Andhra Pradesh, orders came to be passed by the High Court of Telangana, long after bifurcation, transferring all the contempt cases, which are pending before the High Court of Telangana and which fall within the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh, to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 7. In paragraph No. 18, 19 and 20 of the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, the Petitioners categorically states the difficulties faced by the High Court in the initial days of its division. But, at the same time, submits that the preference/priority should be given to contempt cases as the orders passed are not being implemented. 7. In paragraph No. 18, 19 and 20 of the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, the Petitioners categorically states the difficulties faced by the High Court in the initial days of its division. But, at the same time, submits that the preference/priority should be given to contempt cases as the orders passed are not being implemented. Neither the averments in the affidavit nor the material placed before the court indicate any letter or any steps being taken by the Petitioners in informing the Registry the urgency involved and for the posting of these cases before the court. Even, otherwise, the High Court on administrative side has taken every measure in posting of the contempt cases, which are pending before this court and the cause list itself would disclose that contempt cases are now being posted before all the Judges, who are sitting in single Bench every day. Therefore, the grievance expressed that no effort is being made by the High Court or that no preference was given by the High Court for posting of the contempt cases is incorrect. 8. In the context of entertainability of a writ petition of the present nature, it will be apposite to state that one Abhishek Kumar Mishra, had filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, being W.P. (Crl) No. 432 of 2020 making the Secretary General of the Supreme Court as a respondent, seeking a direction for listing of his case on the ground that his grandmother was in death bed and that the matter has to be heard immediately. This application was moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on November 5, 2020. Allegations were made that the Registry failed to list the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in spite of repeated requests made. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 18.02.2021, expressed its disinclination to entertain the petition at the stage of admission itself. 9. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that writ petition of the present nature ought not to be entertained. It may be true that the orders passed in favor of the Petitioners are not being implemented by the authorities, but, at the same time, as stated above, every effort is made by this Court to get the matters disposed of at the earliest. It may be true that the orders passed in favor of the Petitioners are not being implemented by the authorities, but, at the same time, as stated above, every effort is made by this Court to get the matters disposed of at the earliest. If writ petitions of this nature are entertained, then only such of those cases will be heard, where a direction is given for posting of cases. The cause list/ Board of all the Hon’ble Judges would be flooded with cases listed pursuant to such direction. In the process, the cases where there are no such directions and which are equally important, will not be listed. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we feel that the relief claimed by the Petitioners cannot be granted. 10. It is also to be noted here that we are not going to delve into the second relief claimed by the Petitioners as no arguments are advanced for grant of relief claimed therein. Even otherwise, we feel that the remedy sought for lies elsewhere, but definitely not before a Division Bench of this court. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are closed.