HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.4 of 2011 in WRIT PETITION No.16275 of 2007 Date: April 11, 2011 Between: Kirlampalli Tatachary … Petitioner And 1. General Manager, Visakhapatnam District Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd., Visakhapatnam and 3 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.4 of 2011 in WRIT PETITION No.16275 of 2007 O R D E R: This Court, by order dated 29.7.2010 passed in W.P. No.16275 of 2007, observed that if the first respondent in the writ petition being the lessor of the subject land sought to resume possession thereof from the petitioner lessee, it would necessarily have to follow the due procedure laid down by law and directed that without following such procedure it would not be open to the lessor to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in his capacity as a lessee over the subject land. The writ petition was disposed of with the above observation/direction. 2. The first respondent-lessor is a Co-Operative Marketing Society. While so, this contempt case was filed by the writ petitioner alleging that the officers of the District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, though they were not parties to the writ petition, were interfering with his possession over the subject land. Leave was accordingly granted to the petitioner to prosecute the contempt case against them and they were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in the contempt case, notwithstanding the fact that they were not parties to the writ petition. 3. In their counter, respondents 3 and 4 stated that they had not threatened the petitioner that they would demolish his shed and dispossess him. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the stand put forth by respondents 3 and 4 in their counter, the contempt case may be closed duly recording the same. 5. As this Court only directed that the eviction of the petitioner lessee from the subject land should be in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law, respondents 3 and 4, if they have any interest in the subject land through the first respondent co-operative society, are equally bound by the said direction. As they have now come before this Court stating that they have not threatened the petitioner with demolition and dispossession in violation of this Court’s order, no case is made out for exercising contempt jurisdiction against them. 6. The contempt case is accordingly closed. This shall not preclude the petitioner from taking appropriate steps in the event there is any future threat to his possession in violation of the protection afforded by the order of this Court. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: April 11, 2011. BSB