IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CONTEMPT CASE No.1825 of 2009 IN W.P.No.27908 of 2008 Between: S.A.Sha Kaleem, S/o S.A.Rahman, Muslim, aged about 42 years, R/o 41/189, Kothapeta, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.Mrs.Smitha Sabharwal, Joint Collector-cum-Incharge Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kurnool, Kurnool District and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CONTEMPT CASE No.1825 of 2009 IN W.P.No.27908 of 2008 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner seeking to punish the 1st respondent-contemnor herein under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.27908 of 2008 dated 23.12.2008. While disposing of the Writ Petition No.27908 of 2008, this Court, on 23.12.2008, directed the 1st respondent- contemnor i.e., the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kurnool, Kurnool District, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.06.2008, cause a detailed enquiry by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Complaining that the said order is not complied with, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent stating that in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 23.12.2008, the respondent-Corporation conducted a detailed enquiry as per the representation of the petitioner dated 02.06.2008 and since the case of the 3rd respondent has been considered for regularization of his unauthorized construction in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901, MA, dated 31.12.2007, the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of accordingly and the same was communicated to the petitioner by way of an endorsement dated 21.04.2010. In the light of the aforesaid averment made in the counter-affidavit, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said that the respondent-contemnor had flouted the orders of this Court. However, if the grievance of the petitioner is not considered and an order was passed on 21.04.2010, it is always left open to the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 06-09-2010 Gsn.