IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1047 of 2011 Between: Nemallapudi Subbamma … Petitioner And B. Ravikumar … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Purushotham This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1047 of 2011 ORDER:- This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 07.04.2011 in Writ Petition No.27283 of 2010. The petitioner herein filed the abovementioned Writ Petition with the grievance that having issued work order, dated 20.05.2008, the respondent herein has not taken steps for its commencement and completion. In the light of the said grievance, this Court has disposed of the Writ Petition with the direction to respondent No.1 to immediately finalise the name of the agency for execution of the work and forward the same to respondent No.3, who in turn shall entrust the work to the said agency and ensure that the work is commenced and completed within a period of three months. In this contempt case, the grievance of the petitioner is that even though the work was entrusted to an agency, the respondent has deviated from the resolution of the Gram Panchayat and changed the scope of the work by not commencing the drainage work from the location in which her house is situated. In my opinion, the issue of exact nature of work never engaged the attention of this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition. The broad grievance of the petitioner that the work sanctioned by the respondent was not being commenced and completed was addressed by this Court and appropriate direction in that regard was issued while disposing of the Writ Petition. Therefore, in strict sense, the alleged deviation from the original work does not constitute violation of order of this Court. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the deviation in the scope of work, she shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the contempt case is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.08.2011 ES