THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.C.No.716 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed W.P.No.4961 of 2009 feeling aggrieved by a letter, dated 17.01.2009, passed by the Cantonment Board. Through the said letter, the application submitted by the petitioner, seeking permission to construct, was rejected, on the ground that the road, abutting her plot, is not developed. This Court allowed the writ petition, on 08.12.2009, holding that the condition is not relevant and germane. The Board was directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh, without reference to that ground. The respondents passed a fresh order, on 23.01.2010, mentioning as many as five grounds. The petitioner submits that the action of the respondents amounts to contempt of Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is, no doubt, true that this Court found fault with the respondents in rejecting the application of the petitioner, on an irrelevant ground. Thereafter a fresh order came to be passed. The respondents could have been held liable for contempt, if only they repeated the same ground in the fresh order. That is not so. As many as five grounds were mentioned. The second ground, which is said to be similar to the one that was mentioned in the letter, dated 17.01.2009, is substantially different. It is to the effect that the plot of the petitioner does not abut any PWD or MES road. The truth or otherwise of it apart, the contents of the grounds mentioned in the letter, dated 23.01.2010, are substantially and totally different from the one mentioned above. If so advised, the petitioner has to work out her remedies vis-à-vis the letter, dated 23.01.2010. This Contempt Case is accordingly closed. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 31.05.2010 GJ