IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE No: 1313 of 2009 (Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated 06.05.2009 in WPMP.No.12872 of 2009 in WP.No.9931 of 2009) BETWEEN: Chinta Kunta Rajeswar. ... PETITIONER AND The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Nizamabad District and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. B. VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. G. ELISHA MR. CH. JANARDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: Challenging the proceedings of District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad dated 29.04.2009 the objector filed WP.No.9931 of 2009 and by way of interim relief in WPMP.No.12872 of 2009 this Court by order dated 06.05.2009 granted interim suspension of the aforesaid proceedings while ordering notice to the respondents. 2. Present contempt petition is now filed by the writ petitioner alleging that in spite of the aforesaid order, which was communicated to the respondents by fax, the fourth respondent did not take any action thereby the sixth respondent, who had taken up construction was continuing with the same. The specific allegation is that the construction is continuing without action being taken by the fourth respondent and thereby permitting the sixth respondent to complete the construction violating the aforesaid interim orders. 3. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit with the averments that the communication of the interim order to him on 09.05.2009 was acted upon and he has already issued notice to the sixth respondent to stop construction on 09.05.2009 itself. It is further averred that the District Panchayat Officer has also been informed and he has also directed on 15.05.2009 to take steps to stop the construction subject to the compliance above. 4. Similarly, the sixth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit making a specific statement in Para 4 that he has stopped the work over the building on 09.05.2009 itself and till today he did not carry on any work. He has also enclosed photographs showing the construction, which is stopped midway. 5. Though both the counter affidavits were filed on 23.10.2009 and this contempt case was heard on 30.10.2009, no rejoinder is filed by the petitioner disputing the statements of the respondents made in the said counter affidavits referred to above. It is, therefore, evident that the official respondents have taken steps to stop the construction work in compliance with the interim orders and the sixth respondent has also not taken up further construction. In view of the said averments, the allegations in the contempt case that the construction is continued even in spite of the interim order of this Court cannot be accepted. Consequently, therefore, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 6, 2009 DSK