THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1579 of 2009 Dated:01.12.2011 Between: Resident Welfare Association, And another. …Petitioners and Sri B.R.Mena, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1579 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners filed the writ petition, being W.P.No.17418 of 2003, seeking a direction to the respondents to allot/handover vacant land admeasuring 148 square yards in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Colony, Phase II, Moulali, after accepting payment at Rs.350/- per square yard in six annual instalments. By an order dated 24.09.2008, this Court disposed of the matter observing as follows. A perusal of the counter-affidavit would show that as of now no decision is taken by APHB either allotting or rejecting request of petitioners for allotment of land in question for the purpose of library. Unless and until a specific decision is taken the petitioners cannot said to have any grievance. Learned standing counsel submits that there is change in the policy with regard to vacant land/stray of sites in the approved layout. If that be so, any decision to allot the land to first petitioner association for constructing a library for the benefit of the residents of the colony has to be in tune with such policy. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the matter be placed before APHB for taking appropriate decision. Two months time is granted to APHB to take a decision and communicate the same to the petitioners. Alleging that the order of this Court has not been complied with, the petitioners filed the instant Contempt Case. In the counter affidavit filed by the Vice-Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, it is stated that a decision was taken rejecting the request of the petitioners for allotment of land and that the same was communicated to the petitioners vide letter No.18297/J9/2003, dated 14.02.2006. In view of the fact that the decision has already been taken as directed by this Court, the contempt would not lie. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to challenge the rejection order in a separate writ petition. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 01.12.2011 vs