The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Contempt Case No.895 of 2010 Date: 27-09-2010 Between: Sagiraju Ranga Raju and 18 others ..... Petitioners AND V.Nagarjuna Sagar and 3 others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mrs.Pulipati Radhika Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr.Venkateswara Rao for Mr.M.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for respondent No.4: --- Order: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of Order, dated 19-08-2009, passed by this Court in W.P.No.11850 of 2009, by the respondents. I have heard Smt.Pulipati Radhika, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.3- Gram Panchayat. In W.P.No.11850 of 2009, filed by the petitioners assailing the proposed construction of drainage at Bommarajuvari Street, this Court, while disposing of the said Writ Petition, directed that the terms and conditions stipulated in proceedings, dated 07-05-2009, of respondent No.1, shall be complied with while laying the drainage. Respondent No.1 has filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has enumerated the steps taken by him to comply with all the terms and conditions, which are contained in proceedings, dated 07-05-2009. The learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that his clients are unable to deny the averments, made by respondent No.1 in his counter-affidavit, with reference to the compliance of the terms and conditions contained in proceedings dated, 07-05-2009. The learned Counsel, however, submitted that the drainage is sought to be laid above the fresh water line. I am afraid that the above-contention raised at this stage by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be allowed to be raised in the Contempt Case, as the said aspect does not fall within its scope. In as much as the drainage work is undertaken in strict compliance with the terms and conditions contained in proceedings, dated 07-05-2009 of respondent No.1, I do not find any reason to hold that any of the respondents have violated order, dated 19-08-2009, passed by this Court in W.P.No.11850 of 2009. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Contempt Case fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Contempt Case, Application No.895 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 27th September, 2010 lur