THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.C.No.80 of 2012 & REVIEW W.P.M.P.No.3457 of 2012 IN W.P.No.30770 of 2011 Dated: 20.04.2012 C.C.No.80 of 2012 Between: Pulletikurthy Satyanarayanamma .. Petitioner And V.Yesudasu, Assistant Divisional Engineer, APEPDCL, Kothapeta, East Godavari District. .. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Satyanarayana for Smt.N(P).Anjana Devi Counsel for the Respondent: Smt. G.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni REVIEW WPMP.No.3457 of 2012 Between: APEPDCL (A.P.Eastern Power Distribution Co.Ltd.) and others. .. Petitioners And Pulletikurthy Satyanarayanamma .. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt. G.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni Counsel for the Respondent: Sri P.Satyanarayana for Smt.N.(P).Anjana Devi THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.C.No.80 of 2012 & REVIEW W.P.M.P.No.3457 of 2012 IN W.P.No.30770 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: C.C.No.80 of 2012 is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 07.12.2011 in W.P.No.30770 of 2011. Review WPMP.No.3457 of 2012 is filed seeking review of order dated 07.12.2011 in W.P.No.30770 of 2011. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent in the Contempt Case. I have heard the Review Petition and the Contempt Case. At the hearing, it has come out that in obedience to the order passed in the writ petition and in pursuance of the liberty granted to the petitioner pending the contempt case to file fresh application for release of agricultural service, the respondent has sanctioned the agricultural service connection in favour of the petitioner vide letter No.Mgr/CSC/KPT/F.Intimation/D.No.47, dated 19.04.2012. Smt G.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned counsel for the respondent, has assured that the respondent will take further steps for release of power supply subject to the petitioner paying required charges for such release. She further stated that within 30 days of payment of the sum of Rs.7,244/- as estimated in the abovementioned letter, work will be executed and service will be released. In view of the affirm assurance given on behalf of the respondent, who is also personally present in the Court, I am not inclined to proceed with the Contempt Case further. In view of the above subsequent events, the cause in the Review Petition does not survive for adjudication. The Contempt Case is accordingly closed and Review WPMP.No.3457 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 20.04.2012 v v