THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No. 1550 OF 2010 ORDER The petitioner filed W.P. No. 15783 of 2007 alleging that the 3rd respondent made illegal and unauthorized constructions and that the respondents 1 and 2 did not take any steps for demolition thereof. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that an application filed by her for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 901 dated 31.12.2007 was pending. The writ petition was disposed of on 05.11.2009 directing that the application submitted by the 3rd respondent shall be considered by the 1st respondent within four weeks; it shall be open to the petitioner to submit objections for the regularization and in case the application for regularization is rejected, respondents 1 and 2 shall take immediate steps for demolition of the premises. This Contempt Case is filed alleging that respondents 1 and 2 did not implement the directions issued by this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction as summed up in the preceding paragraph. Learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the application of 3rd respondent for regularization of unauthorized construction was rejected on 25.10.2010 and a notice for demolition of the premises was issued on 09.11.2010. She submits that the further action could not be taken on account of an interim order passed by this Court on 16.11.2010 in W.P. No. 28516 of 2010. Respondents 1 and 2 can be said to be guilty for contempt in case they remain indifferent after rejection of the application of the 3rd respondent. In all promptitude they issued notice dated 09.11.2010 for demolition of the premises after the application was rejected on 25.10.2010. Hardly within one week, the 3rd respondent had approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 28516 of 2010 and obtained interim order. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondents 1 and 2 have flouted the orders of this Court. If the petitioner is so advised, he can be impleaded in the writ petition to pursue the remedies. Hence, the Contempt Case is closed. _________________________ JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Dated: 19.01.2010 tsk