THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.600 OF 2009 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of an interim order dated 26.09.2008 in WPMP.No.26770 of 2008 in WP.No.20497 of 2008. The main writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not restoring electricity supply to the petitioner’s Service Connection No.365 in respect of petitioner’s house at Peddagudem Cross-roads on the road of Miryalaguda to Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, as arbitrary and illegal. While issuing rule nisi, this Court on 26.09.2008 passed an order in WPMP.No.26770 of 2008 as under : “Keeping in view that the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection was disconnected in the year 2007 and that the petitioner made representations requesting the respondents to restore power supply which were received in the office of the respondents on 14.6.2008 and 16.6.2008, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order.” It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents failed to comply with the said order and in spite of the request made by the petitioner neither the power supply was restored nor any order was passed on the petitioner’s representations dated 14.6.2008 and 16.6.2008. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that after the above said interim order dated 26.9.2008 was passed, the respondents filed a counter-affidavit in the writ petition on 26.10.2008 and after hearing both the parties the interim order dated 26.9.2008 was modified directing the respondents to prepare the estimates and inform the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the estimates were prepared by the respondents, but the petitioner refused to receive the same. The estimates were then sent by speed post. However, again they were returned with an endorsement ‘refused’. Hence, the allegations made against the respondents in this contempt case are incorrect and without any basis. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Admittedly the interim order dated 26.9.2008 was modified subsequently on 1.12.2008 and the modified order runs as under: “There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider restoring service connection sanctioned in favour of petitioner at Peddagudem Village and purported to have been shifted to Peddagudem X roads, provided petitioner bears the expenditure for erecting poles and wires, as per law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.” Thus it is clear that the interim order dated 26.9.2008 has merged with the subsequent modified order 1.12.2008. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner, if any, can be only for non-implementation or violation of the order dated 1.12.2008. Since the interim order dated 26.9.2008 is not in operation as on today, the present contempt case cannot be maintained. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner has also initiated contempt proceedings alleging violation of the modified order dated 1.12.2008 and the said Contempt Case is pending. In the circumstances, no further enquiry is necessary and accordingly this Contempt Case is closed. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 11.08.2009 gbs