THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO. 815 OF 2007 DATE: 21.4.2011 BETWEEN: Shaik Osman petitioner And Sri Amruth Kumar & ors respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri J Sreenivasa Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri R Ramachandra Reddy, Sri B.V.V.S.Murthy Sri Bommana Ramakrishna The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO. 815 OF 2007 ORDER: This contempt case is filed complaining that respondents wilfully disobeyed the interim orders of this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 10806 of 2009 in W.P. No. 8462 of 2006 dated 25.4.2006 whereby this Court directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 10.4.2006 of the petitioner, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as third respondent in accordance with law and take appropriate action if any constructions are made contrary to the sanctioned plan. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent stating that respondent corporation has served the required notices in terms of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, as against which the third respondent has approached the City Civil Court and obtained injunction order in I.A No. 4408 of 2006 in O.S. No. 218 of 2006 . That the petitioner herein also filed a suit and obtained status quo order in I.A. No.371 of 2006 in O.S. No. 1930 of 2006 on the file of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. That the corporation has disposed of the representation of the petitioner dated 10.4.2006 and informed the same to the petitioner’s counsel on 17.10.2006 that respondent corporation has served the required notice under Section 461 of HMC Act, 1955 and show cause notice under Section 452 of HMC Act, 1955 and the third respondent has approached the City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained injunction orders in O.S.No.218 of 2006. It is further stated that the said suit was dismissed by orders dated 8.9.2007 and thereafter final notice was served on the third respondent to vacate and remove the unauthorised construction. That request was made to police to provide protection for demolition of the unauthorised constructions on couple of occasions, which could not be provided and ultimately on 22.11.2007 with the assistance of police, the respondent corporation has demolished a part of the building. It is further stated that since the third respondent did not vacate the subject premises, the respondent corporation is approaching the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer for getting the premises vacated by conducting panchanama. It is also stated that as soon as the premises is vacated, further demolition will be taken up. In view of the aforesaid steps taken by the respondent corporation for vacating the third respondent and demolishing the unauthorised premises, it cannot be said that the respondent has wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. ______________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE:21.4.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CONTEMPT CASE NO. 815 OF 2007 DATE: 21.4.2011