THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1434 of 2009 Date: 7.4.2010 Between: Margadarsi Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Kothapet, Hyderabad and another. Petitioners And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and others. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.1434 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 6.11.2008 passed in W.P.No.25519 of 2007. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 21.10.2009. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit. Thereupon the petitioners filed reply affidavit. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents rejected the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to construct the compound wall and the rejection of the application amounts to violation of the direction given to the respondents in the writ petition and thereby the respondents rendered themselves liable for punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the application filed by the petitioners came to be rejected on 27.10.2009 as they have not paid initial amount towards permit fee apart from some other grounds. The issue that calls for adjudication is whether the respondents violated the direction given in the W.P.No.25519 of 2007. The direction given in the writ petition is that the petitioners shall make an application to the respondents seeking permission for construction of the compound wall within two weeks and that the petitioners shall complete the construction of the compound wall within eight weeks from the date of permission. In the event of the petitioners failing to construct the compound wall, the respondents are at liberty to construct the compound wall. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioners seeking permission to construct the compound wall amounts to violation of the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition. I have gone through the proceedings dated 27.10.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent. The relevant portion of the proceedings reads as hereunder:- “As seen from the application and the submitted plan, the applicant has not paid the initial amount towards permit fee as such the same was not recorded in the Building permit register. It is learnt that the LRS application submitted by the applicant vide file No.5760/C3/EZ/2008, dated 22-08-2008 has been rejected on 20-02-2009 and intimated to the applicant, with an endorsement that, it is an open space of the layout meant for public purpose. It is also mentioned in the LRS file that, the applicant has shown the sites as open land where as on physical inspection it is found that there is a big open well. In view of the above, it is informed that the building application for construction of compound wall cannot be considered without regulating the plot under the LRS. Since the LRS application for regulating the plot was already rejected on 20-02-2009, the building application for construction of compound wall even if submitted automatically stands cancelled and rejected. Hence the permission for construction of compound wall applied is hereby rejected on the above grounds.” It appears the 2nd respondent commenced the construction of compound wall around the dilapidated well consequence on the rejection of the application filed by the petitioners. One of the grounds for rejection of the application submitted by the petitioners is for want of proper fee. Indisputably, the petitioners have not paid requisite fee for considering the application submitted by them seeking permission for construction of the compound wall. Such is the situation, the rejection of the application by the respondents cannot be stated to be in violation of the order passed by this Court. Be that as it may, the 2nd respondent has already commenced the construction of compound wall around dilapidated well. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioners failed to make any valid ground that the respondents violated the order dated 6.11.2008 passed in W.P.No.25519 of 2007. Accordingly, the Contempt Case fails and it is dismissed. ___________________________ (Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) Date:7.4.2010 mrb