THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No. 70 of 2010. ORDER: (Per Ramesh Ranganathan, J) This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order of this Court in W.P.No. 8854 of 2009, dated: 17.8.2009. The aforesaid order of this Court required the official respondents, in particular the second respondent, to forthwith ensure cessation of all quarrying operations in the several quarry leases, granted for quarrying of Minor Mineral granite or stone, in and around Ghanpur village of Toopran Mandal, Medak District by employment of any blasting operations or explosives. The 2nd respondent was directed to ensure cessation of all quarrying operations employing explosives notwithstanding that the lessees concerned had obtained requisite sanctions or permissions from the Explosives Department concerned. Four months after the aforementioned order of this Court was passed two persons, namely Pallapu Ramulu and Vallapu Yellam, died as a result of blasting operations by use of explosives and two ladies namely Sayamma and her daughter-in-law Renuka were seriously injured resulting in the loss of their eyesight. A photostat copy of an agreement, allegedly executed by and on behalf of the respondents 12 and 14, was placed before us whereunder respondents 12 and 14 are said to have agreed to pay compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh to each of the deceased, and a total amount of Rs. 3.00 lakhs for the future livelihood and medical treatment including that of the injured. Pursuant to the said agreement, Rs. 30,000/- is said to have been received by the legal heirs of the deceased towards funeral and other expenses. In the light of the specific allegation that the said agreement was itself proof of the involvement of respondents 12 and 14 in the blasting operations, and as it appeared that respondents 12 and 14 had violated the order of this Court, we directed appearance of the official respondents before this Court. Thereafter, a copy of original agreement was seized by the official respondents and placed before us. In the counter affidavit filed by him, respondent No.14 has denied having signed the agreement, or to have paid any compensation. Respondent No.12 agreed that his representative had signed the agreement, and had paid compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. He would, however, submit that he had paid compensation on being coerced to do so by the police officials. Today the learned Advocate General has placed before us a copy of charge sheet which does indicate the involvement of respondents 12 and 14 in blasting operations which resulted in the death of two men, and serious injuries to two women. As to whether respondents 12 and 14 in this contempt case are guilty as charged will have to await the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in Cr.No. 13 of 2010 of P.S. Toopran. At this stage, it cannot be said with certainty that respondents 12 and 14 have violated the order of this court. As the degree of proof required to be established in contempt proceedings is proof beyond reasonable doubt, we do not consider it appropriate to proceed further against any of the respondents including respondents 12 and 14. Suffice to observe that the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused, including respondents 12 and 14 herein shall be completed expeditiously. With the above observation, the contempt case is closed and the Rule is discharged. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 08.07.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE No. 70 of 2010. Dt. 08.07.2011.