THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1844 of 2010 ORDER: This Contempt Case was listed for hearing on 19.04.2011. As there was no representation for the petitioner on that date, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’ today. Even today also, there is no representation. This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the directions issued by this Court on 27.11.2009 in WPMP.No.33577 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.25783 of 2009. Petitioner, which is an association, filed Writ Petition No.25783 of 2009 questioning the action of the respondents in not constructing houses to its members as per proceedings in Rc.No.110/2004/UPHP/2004-2005, dated 28.04.2005, as illegal. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the writ petition, there were interim directions issued by this Court vide its order, dated 27.11.2009, to the respondents to construct houses to its members as per proceedings in Rc.No.110/2004/UPHP/2004-05, dated 28.04.2005. In spite of the same, the respondents have not taken up construction work. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Urban), Visakhapatnam. In the counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that with regard to the land where constructions are proposed, third parties have filed O.S.Nos.1295 of 2003, 49 of 2004, 1658 of 2005, 1336 of 2010 and 1656 of 2009, in which, there are interim orders passed by various Courts granting permanent injunction and in view of such injunction orders, the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam is not able to hand over physical possession of the land covered by Survey No.4 of Dondaparthi Village, to the second respondent for construction of VAMBAY Housing Colony. Though the land in question is not handed over to the second respondent for construction of houses to the members of the petitioner association in view of the injunction orders passed by various civil Courts, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the respondents have already taken steps for vacation of such injunction orders. In view of such explanation offered by the respondents, it cannot be said that there is willful and deliberate violation on their part in implementing the directions issued by this Court, attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd JUNE, 2011. kvni