THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.646 of 2009 Dated:20th August, 2009 Between: Smt. K.Aruna Kumari …Petitioner and 1. Mr.Sridhar, Commissioner, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam & Anr. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.646 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents complaining disobedience of the order dated 09.07.2008 passed in WP No.9192 of 2008. 2. The petitioner filed the writ petition contending that the respondents are contemplating to demolish her house bearing Municipal No.65-6-407/4, Mulagada Housing Colony, Visakhapatnam, without following the due process of law. When the writ petition came up admission, learned Standing Counsel of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation stated that the corporation would follow the due process of law in the event of the house owned by the petitioner is required to be demolished. Taking into the account the statement of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, the writ petition came to be disposed of on 09.07.2008. The relevant portion of the order passed in the writ petition reads as hereunder: “In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the 1st respondent-Corporation to follow the due process of law in the event of the house bearing Municipal No.65-6-407/4, situated at Mulagada Housing Colony, Visakhapatnam, is required to be demolished. No costs.” The grievance of the petitioner is that the Corporation demolished the hut owned by her without following the due process of law. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 24.06.2009. Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed counter-affidavits. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner filed an application for regularization of the encroachments and her application was not considered since encroached portion is an assigned land. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated that the premises of the petitioner has not been demolished. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the counter-affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “The petitioner in this case has not even filed any proof of her ownership of the site in her possession in which a building with door No.65- 6-407/4 is in existence. The petitioner has not even mentioned the details of approved plans of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation of her own building. The first respondent is not aware of the application said to have been submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. The first respondent corporation further submits that the property of the petitioner i.e,, Building bearing Door No.65-6-407/4, situated at Mulagada Housing Colony, which is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.9192/2008 was not demolished as alleged by the petitioner. There is a proposal by Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation to construct a community hall in the said vacant site and Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation authorities have prepared a sketch after taking the measurements of the site. But, the petitioner has no manner of right to interfere with the site in question, as she has no manner of interest or title over the site in question, since the site belongs to the Government.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the hut owned by the petitioner has been demolished by the respondents without following the due process of law. Whereas, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that no part of the premises allegedly owned by the petitioner has been demolished and therefore, the contempt case is misconceived. 7. The petitioner has not placed any proof to show that the respondents demolished the premises bearing Municipal No.65-6-407/4 owned by her. Therefore, the contempt case is misconceived. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:20th August, 2009. CS