THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CONTEMPT CASE No. 26 of 2011 ORDER: This contempt case is filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of respondents 1 to 4 in complying with the interim orders dated 20.08.2010 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 20814 of 2010, which reads as follows: “The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents could not get proper instructions from the respondents. Hence, this Court is compelled to stay the drawl of lots, scheduled to be held tomorrow. Hence, the draw of lots by the respondents is stayed for a period of one week. Post on 26.08.2010. In the meantime, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue shall obtain proper instructions/file counter.” The petitioners state that the aforesaid interim orders passed on 20.08.2010 were extended from time to time by this Court and they were in force till 30.01.2011 and in spite of the same, the respondents, in violation of the said orders, have proceeded to conduct IRIS test on 20.01.2011, to some third parties who are not in the list of beneficiaries for allotment of houses under JNNURM Scheme, which was furnished by the 1st respondent and duly verified with the third party verification report submitted by the 4th respondent in pursuance of the verification conducted by third party agency namely M/s. Gayatri Rural Educational Society, and that the respondents have also conducted drawl of lots for allotment of houses under JNNURM scheme to those third parties. The petitioners, thus, pray the Court to punish the respondents 1 to 4 for committing contempt of the orders of this Court. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter-affidavits. They contended that they have not violated the orders of this Court and no fresh allotment of houses under JNNURM Housing Scheme has been made and that IRIS test was conducted only to those who have already been allotted houses under the priority categories such as disabled persons and HIV positive victims and other left over beneficiaries of railway land encroachers. It is further stated that drawl of lots has been conducted on 26.01.2011, only after modification of stay orders by this Court, vide orders dated 24.01.2011, setting apart three units to all those identified under hut dwellers category as per JNNURM rules laid down. It is further contended that the petitioners could not be identified as eligible beneficiaries under hut dwellers category, and that as M/s. Gayatri Rural Educational Society issued option forms to ineligible persons and numerous complaints were received from the public as well as public representatives, the third party survey conducted by the said society was set aside and it was instructed to conduct drawl of lots from among the entire eligible list of hut dwellers and accordingly, after modification of stay orders by this Court on 24.01.2011, drawl of lots has been conducted, as stated above, duly reserving three houses to the petitioners herein as per the orders of this Court, and all eligible beneficiaries have been selected initially for allotment of houses, whose eligibility has to be further verified by conducting door-to-door verification. They, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the contempt case. The petitioners filed reply affidavit to the counter-affidavit of respondent No.1, contending that allotment of houses was done in respect of general members, but not to HIV positive persons or disabled persons as contended by respondent No.1. In support of this contention, the petitioners have filed some photocopies of allotment slips issued in favour of certain beneficiaries and according to them, those beneficiaries are neither HIV positive victims nor disabled persons and thus they do not come under privileged categories. The 2nd respondent filed an additional counter-affidavit, denying the allegations made by the petitioners in their reply affidavit. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the order, willful violation of which is alleged in the present contempt case, is an interim order passed by this Court for a limited period, in view of not reporting proper instructions by the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, and was subsequently modified by this Court, on 24.01.2011. Though the petitioners contend that during the existence of interim orders dated 20.08.2010 passed by this Court, staying the drawl of lots, the respondent authorities have conducted drawl of lots in violation of the said orders, the respondents 1 and 2 have categorically stated that, during the subsistence of stay orders, no fresh allotment of houses under JNNURM housing scheme has been made and IRIS test was conducted to disabled persons and HIV positive victims alone, from 20.01.2011 onwards. It is also their stand that, only after modification of stay orders by this Court on 24.01.2011, the drawl of lots has been conducted on 26.01.2011, reserving three houses to the petitioners herein, as per the orders of this Court, for allotment of houses to all those identified under hut dwellers category, and as such they have not committed contempt of the orders of this Court. The photocopies of allotment slips and bio-metric cards filed by the petitioners along with their reply-affidavit, in support of their claim that the respondent authorities have proceeded with allotment of houses in favour of third parties belonging to general category even before modification of stay orders by this Court on 24.01.2011, do not contain the signature of the officer concerned/authorized and there is no material to substantiate these documents. In view of the counter averments, as noted above, the respondents cannot be said to have committed contempt of the orders of this Court. Admittedly, the order, willful violation of which is complained in this contempt case, is only an interim order, and as the main writ petition is still pending, and as the respondents, pending disposal of the writ petition, have protected the interests of the petitioners by reserving three houses for allotment in the event they succeed in the writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that there is no need to proceed further with the contempt case. Thus, the contempt case is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 15th July, 2011 IBL