ORDER : Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that the respondents have committed an act of disobedience or disrespectful to the orders of this Court, as such they are liable for punishment Under Section 10 to 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). He further submits that this Court passed an order directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same in terms of G.O.Ms.No.35, Transport, Roads & Buildings (R.1) Department, dated 30.01.2009. But in disobedience to the said direction, the respondents are stating that the petitioner is not entitled for consideration as per G.O.Ms.No.35 since the same is not part and parcel of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. Therefore, on that guise the respondents chosen to avoid consideration of G.O.Ms.No.35. Therefore, the respondents are deviated and wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court. Hence, they are liable for punishment Under Sections 10 to 12 of the Act. 2. While so, learned counsel for respondents also filed counter-affidavit along with speaking order dated 20.02.2025 passed pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 24.07.2024. For determination whether the respondents committed any contempt as alleged by the petitioner or not, it is appropriate to extract the order of this Court as under: “Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of directing the 3 rd and 4 th respondents herein to consider the representation dated 12.07.2024 submitted by the petitioner in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.35, Transport, Roads & Buildings (R.1) Department, dated 30.01.2009 and to pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order” 3. On perusal of the above order of this Court, it is clear and specific that the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.35 and pass appropriate orders. On perusal of the above order of this Court, it is clear and specific that the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.35 and pass appropriate orders. It appears that in compliance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.15799/2024, dated 24.07.2024, the 3 rd respondent passed a speaking order dated 20.02.2025 which reads as under: “In view of the above directions of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., the Contractor’s request for applicability of G.O.Ms.No.35 T, R&B (R.I) Department, dated 30.01.2009 has been carefully examined and it is informed as under: 1. Clause No.46 of the Agreement of the subject work says “Price Adjustment as per G.O.Ms.No.35 T, R&B (R.I) Department, dated 28.02.2006, G.O.Ms.No.73, T, R&B (R-I) Department, dated 24.04.2006, G.O.Rt.No:175, T, R&B (R-I) Department, dated 19.02.2008, G.O.Ms.No.252, T, R&B (R.I) Department, dated 28.08.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.01, Finance (Works & Projects – F7) Department, dated 23.02.2012. This Price Adjustment clause shall apply for Steel, Cement, Bitumen and P.O.L. 2. The G.O.Ms.No.35 T, R&B (R.I) Department, dated 30.01.2009 is not existing in the Clause-46 of the Agreement.” 4. On perusal of the speaking order dated 20.02.2025 issued by the respondents, it is observed that as directed by this Court the respondents considered the representation of the petitioner with reference to the G.O.Ms.No.35 and found that the terms of G.O.Ms.No.35 are not applicable to the petitioner due to the exclusion of terms of G.O.Ms.No.35 under clause-46 of the work agreement entered between the petitioner and respondent. Therefore, on perusal of speaking order passed by the respondents after considering the representation was certainly made with reference to the G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 30.01.2009. If the petitioner still feels that the action of the respondents not as per his entitlement or in terms of his agreement, he is at liberty to proceed further by initiating appropriate proceedings. 5. Therefore, in view of reasons stated as above and pursuant to the speaking orders passed by the respondents dated 20.02.2025, the orders of this Court in W.P.No.15799/2024, dated 24.07.2024 are complied with by the respondents. As such, no further orders are required to be passed in this matter for further adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed.