THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.258 of 2010 Date:04.02.2011 Between: Parsika Somaraju and another ..... Petitioners AND The Commissioner, Bhadrachalam Municipality, and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.V. Ramana Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri P. Radhakrishna Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Government Pleader for Municipal Administration The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 29.12.2009 in W.P.M.P.Nos.36918 and 36919 of 2009 in W.P.No.28351 of 2009. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. The petitioners in this contempt case are the writ petitioners. In the above noted W.P.M.Ps., this Court directed respondent Nos.8 to 10 in the writ petition to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 20.10.2009 against the construction of high rise building by respondent No.12 in the writ petition without any sanctioned plan. The complaint in this contempt case is that even though the order passed by this Court was received by respondent No.1 on 01.10.2010 under acknowledgment, he has not disposed of the said representation. Separate counter-affidavits had been filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3. In the counter-affidavit by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that he has received the order of this Court on 21.01.2010, and passed an order on 19.02.2010 directing respondent No.12 in the writ petition to stop construction. It is further stated that the said order was questioned by respondent No.12 in the writ petition, wherein an interim order of status quo was granted. From the facts noted above, it is evident that there is delay on the part of respondent No.1 in disposing of the petitioners’ representation. Having regard to the nature of the complaint, namely, that respondent No.12 in the writ petition was raising construction unauthorizedly without any sanction, respondent No.1 ought to have been more vigilant in acting on the order of the Court. In strict sense, no such order was required from this Court for taking action against unauthorized construction as it is the obligation of the administrative machinery entrusted with the duty of regulating construction activities to prevent illegal constructions. Be that as it may, as respondent No.1 has passed an order on 19.02.2010 albeit with some delay, by which he is stated to have directed respondent No.12 to stop further construction, and in view of the regrets expressed by them in the counter-affidavit, this Court is not inclined to proceed further against the respondents in the contempt case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed with liberty to the petitioners to avail their further remedies against the alleged unauthorized construction by respondent No.12 in the writ petition. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04th February, 2011 GHN