IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE No: 1321 of 2009 (Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated 26.12.2008 in WP.No.9968 of 2009.) BETWEEN: Md. Yousuf Khan. ... PETITIONER AND Sri Manikyala Rao. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SHAIK JILANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: By my order dated 26.12.2008 the respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner for grant of occupancy certificate under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act. 2. The direction was to consider and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of the aforesaid order. Since the respondent had not passed any order, the present contempt case dated 10.09.2009 was filed on 22.09.2009 and by order dated 25.09.2009 notice before admission was ordered. 3. The respondent has now filed counter affidavit stating that though he received a copy of the order on account of conducting of general elections, the process of disposal of the application of the petitioner could not be completed within the three months stipulated period. By order dated 16.10.2009 the said application has been considered and disposed of and a copy of the said order is annexed to the counter affidavit. 4. Though there is considerable delay in complying with the order of this Court, now that the respondent has passed an order under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, the petitioner is at liberty to question the said order, if he is aggrieved thereby, by approaching the appellate authority under the said Act. In view of the explanation given by the respondent in the counter affidavit for the delay in not passing the order within the time, the contempt case is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 23, 2009 DSK