THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1373 of 2010 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.20871 of 2010 alleging that the respondents have willfully and deliberately violated the directions issued by this Court in order, dated 20.08.2010 passed in WPMP.No.26547 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.20871 of 2010. In the Writ Petition, petitioner has questioned proceedings, which were served on him on 16.08.2010, issued on 12.08.2010 in Roc.No.1169/67, for removal of encroachments with regard to building bearing Door No.8/334, R.B.Main Road (Machilipatnam- Kaluvapamula Road), Vuyyur Village and Mandal, Krishna District. This Court pending disposal of the Writ Petition, by order, dated 20.08.2010 passed in WPMP.No.26547 of 2010, directed the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and continuous enjoyment of the petitioner over building bearing door No.8/334, Assessment No.3003, R.B.Main Road (Machilipatnam- Kaluvapamula Road), Vuyyur Village and Mandal, Krishna District. It is the case of the petitioner that the said interim order passed by this Court was sent to the respondent telegraphically on the same day evening and in spite of receipt of the same, the fourth respondent - Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat, Vuyyuru, Krishna District, has removed the encroachments and demolished the structures in gross violation of the directions issued by this Court. It is also his case that he has shown a copy of the telegraphic order to the fourth respondent even before taking up the demolition and in spite of the same, the fourth respondent proceeded with the demolition, as such, the fourth respondent is liable for the contempt of Court orders. Counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit are filed. In the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, while denying various allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that the R&B Department vide letter No.Encroachments/HC/East Subdivision/2010, dated 26.06.2010, directed the Gram Panchayat to remove the encroachments and in pursuance of the same, the Gram Panchayat decided to remove the encroachments vide resolution No.43, dated 06.08.2010. It is further stated that after issuing notices, encroachments were removed on 21.08.2010 and the entire debris was also removed on the same day. With reference to interim order, dated 20.08.2010 passed by this Court in WPMP.No.26547 of 2010, it is stated that the said order was not received by him and he came to know about the said order after receipt of a copy thereof from the Office of the District Panchayat Officer on 25.08.2010. Additional counter-affidavit is filed in similar lines. In the additional counter-affidavit, it is stated that notice, dated 12.08.2010, was pasted to the premises of the petitioner on the same day and encroachments were removed on 21.08.2010. It is categorically stated that the fourth respondent was not aware of the orders passed by this Court on 20.08.2010 before taking up the demolition on 21.08.2010. Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner stating that the fourth respondent disobeyed the interim orders passed by this Court on 20.08.2010. He also placed on record additional material obtained from the telegraphic department. It shows that the telegram sent by the petitioner was undelivered as the addressee was not available. Having regard to the allegations of the petitioner and the averments mentioned in the counter-affidavit and additional counter- affidavit, the only thing, which requires consideration, is whether the fourth respondent has violated the directions issued by this Court by undertaking demolition of structures on 21.08.2010. Although it is the case of the petitioner that interim order, dated 20.08.2010, passed by this Court was communicated telegraphically to the fourth respondent on the same day evening, there is no material to show that the same was received by the fourth respondent before taking up the demolition on 21.08.2010. Even the material obtained by the petitioner from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, which is filed along with the reply affidavit, merely shows that the telegram was booked on 20.08.2010 and it was undelivered owing to addressee not available. There is also no material to show that on what date, an attempt was made to deliver such telegram to the fourth respondent. In the absence of any material to accept the contention of the petitioner that the fourth respondent has received the telegraphic orders of this Court dated 20.08.2010 before taking up the demolition of structures in the early hours of 21.08.2010, it cannot be said that the fourth respondent has willfully and deliberately violated the directions of this Court attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. As the subject matter is quasi-criminal in nature, unless sufficient material is placed on record, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that demolition was undertaken by the fourth respondent in violation of the directions of this Court issued in WPMP.No.26547 of 2010 on 20.08.2010. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Contempt Case so as to proceed further under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the fourth respondent. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th AUGUST, 2011. kvni