THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1083 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.8508 of 2011 complaining that Mahaboobnagar Municipality, respondent No.2 in the writ petition, did not take any steps against respondent No.3 therein when she was making unauthorized construction in the neighborhood of the petitioner. The writ petition was admitted on 30.03.2011 and in W.P.M.P.No.10578 of 2011, an interim order was passed to the eﬀect that respondent No.3 in the writ petition shall not proceed with the construction without there being any sanctioned plan and that respondent No.2 shall be under obligation to ensure that no unauthorized construction takes place. This contempt case is ﬁled against respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition alleging that the interim orders passed by this Court are violated. Respondent No.2 ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated that she was accorded permission to construct ground and first floors and with a view to construct the second ﬂoor, she submitted an application on 30.03.2010. According to her, the Municipality did not take any steps on the application and thereby, a deemed permission had accrued under the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act (for short ‘the Act’). Respondent No.1 ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit stating that as soon as the unauthorized construction on the second ﬂoor was found, a notice under Sections 217 and 228 of the Act was issued on 27.05.2010 and ﬁnal notice was also issued on 06.10.2010. It is stated that a criminal case in S.T.C.No.69 of 2010 was also ﬁled in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahaboobnagar. Reference is made to O.S.No.7 of 2011 ﬁled by respondent No.2 and the order of status quo passed in I.A.No.37 of 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Respondent No.2 did have the permission to construct ground and ﬁrst ﬂoors. The dispute is only about the construction of second ﬂoor. She pleads that a deemed permission had accrued to her. The record discloses that respondent No.2 ﬁled O.S.No.7 of 2011 and obtained an order of status quo. Now that respondent No.1 has issued provisional and ﬁnal notices, respondent No.2 cannot make any further construction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there was any deliberate contempt on the part of respondent No.1. Hence, the contempt case is closed. It is, however, directed that respondent No.2 shall not make any construction despite the order of status quo passed by the trial Court until the matter is ﬁnally decided in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.12.2011. kdl