IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1433 OF 2009 Between: Iqbal M.Oosman ..... PETITIONER AND Sri T.Srinivas, Superintending Engineer, Distribution XVIII (North Circle), A.P.Transco, Mint Compound, Hyderabad and others .... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1433 OF 2009 O R D E R: This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order dated 28.11.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.No.20480 of 2005 as under: “ Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners dated 29.07.2005 in accordance with law, without insisting on payment of the arrears alleged to be due from the tenant in connection with Service Connection No.V6-27233, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.” It is not in dispute that pursuant to the above said order, service connection was granted to the petitioner and the construction of the building was also completed. However, subsequently fresh notices dated 04.08.2008 and 14.09.2009 were issued by the respondents demanding the amounts allegedly due towards the service connection No.V6-27233 under threat of disconnection. According to the petitioner, the said action of the respondents amounts to Contempt of Court and therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material available on record, including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and keeping in view the admitted fact that service connection was already issued by the respondents without insisting on payment of arrears I do not find any substance in the allegations made by the petitioner. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notices dated 04.08.2008 and 14.09.2009, it is always open to him to challenge the same by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law before the competent forum. However, it is not a matter for enquiry in the contempt proceedings. Accordingly, granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to workout the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of his grievance on account of the subsequent demand notices issued, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. ____________ Date: 08.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd