HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Dated 16-11-2009 CONTEMPT CASE No.755 OF 2009 Between: N. Adinarayana Murthy. …Petitioner. And: 1. The Commissioner, Greater, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and four others. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.755 OF 2009 ORDER: This contempt has been filed complaining the disobedience of the order dated 22-07-2008 in W.P.No.15750 of 2008. 2. This Contempt Case came to be admitted on 29-7-2009. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed C.C.M.P.No.789 of 2009 to dispense with his presence. The said C.C.M.P.No.789 of 2009 came to be ordered on 11-09-2009. 3. The 1st respondent filed Counter. When the Contempt Case came up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Heard the Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the material brought on record. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the unauthorized constructions made by the 4th respondent have been demolished, consequent on rejection of application filed by him seeking regularisation and removal of unauthorized constructions have been informed to the petitioner under proceedings No.73/ACP/C10/GHMC/2009 dated 09-09- 2009. Copy of the proceedings has been placed on record. 6. The direction in the Writ Petition is to consider the representation of the petitioner with regard to the unauthorized constructions made by the 4th respondent-K.Bhaskara Rao and pass appropriate orders after putting on notice to the affected party. 7. It is stated in the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent that after the rejection of B.P.S. application filed by the 4th respondent, action has been initiated and consequently, unauthorized constructions made by the 4th respondent has been demolished. Paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent reads as under: “In reply to para No.5, it is submitted that the allegation that the officials of the respondents 1 to 3 are acting hand in glove with 4th respondent is totally false. The respondent herein has the highest regards for the directions of this Hon’ble Court. They are duty bound to obey the orders of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the allegation that the respondent Corporation has violated the orders of this Hon’ble Court is not true. After the application under the B.P.S. filed by the respondent No.4, was rejected, action was initiated as per law and the unauthorized construction made by the respondent No.4, was demolished. Since the B.P.S. Application was pending, the respondent Corporation could not dispose off the representation filed by the petitioner within time. This was neither wanton nor willful but for the reasons stated above. This Respondent offers his unconditional apology for the delay in disposing off the representation of the petitioner. After the action was initiated, the respondent Corporation has addressed a letter to the petitioner about the action taken by the respondent Corporation.” 8. Proceeding issued whereunder 4th respondent has been directed not to proceed with any other construction, is placed on record. Since the unauthorized constructions made by the 4th respondent have been demolished and proceeding has been issued to the 4th respondent directing him not to proceed with further construction, it amounts to substantial compliance of the order passed in the Writ Petition. 9. Accordingly, this Contempt Case does not survive and the same is dismissed. __________________________________ Justice B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date: 16-11-2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.755 OF 2009 Dated 16-11-2009