HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1767 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 926 of 2010 challenging the proceedings dated 15-12-2007 issued by the Special Grade Deputy Collector – cum – Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, (East Division), Goshamahal, Hyderabad. The writ petition was allowed through order, dated 15-12- 2010, setting aside the impugned proceedings. The petitioner, on the one hand and the respondents 6 and 7 on the other, were permitted to work out their remedies in the Civil Court. This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the sole respondent, who figured as 6th respondent in the writ petition, has got issued a notice to the Gram Panchayat with distorted version and without making any reference to the order of this Court. According to the petitioner, the said act amounts to contempt of Court. 2. The sole respondent filed counter affidavit. He states that he did not intend to suppress any facts and the notice was issued only by making reference to the pending suit. He has also tendered unconditional apologies for the laches, if any, on his part. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. In its order dated 05-02-2010, this Court in W.P. No.926 of 2020 has set aside the proceedings challenged therein, and granted the necessary relief. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Revenue authorities have implemented the said order. 5. The allegation against the respondent is that he got issued a notice to the Gram Panchayat without making any reference to the orders of this Court or the consequential proceedings. Even if that is true, it cannot be said that the respondent committed the acts of contempt of Court. It is only when he has made a deliberate misrepresentation by making a special reference to the order that he can be fault for contempt. If he has not mentioned the factum of the writ petition being allowed in his notice, it does not amount to contempt. Further, if there was any mis-statement of facts by the respondent, it is always open to the petitioner to correct the same. In case, the petitioner suffered any loss on account of such representation made by the petitioner, he can also work out his remedies in the Civil Court. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 20, 2011. KTL/VJL