THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.1750 of 2010 DT.24.12.2010 Between: Pilli Ashalu … Petitioner And The Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar West Division, Karimnagar District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for respondents: GP for Forest The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 18.03.2010, in W.P.M.P.No.7861 of 2010 in W.P.No.6109 of 2010. I have heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Forest. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.6109 of 2010 questioning the action of the respondents in not permitting him to collect bamboo in reserve forest area. In W.P.M.P.No.7861 of 2010, filed by the petitioner in the said writ petition, this Court passed the following interim order: “In view of the proceedings, dated 26.10.2009, whereby the contract between the petitioner, Bommireddypally VSS was approved by respondent No.1, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to harvest Bamboos in Coup Nos.I, II & III comprised in Compartment Nos.504 & 505 VSS Bommireddypally beat of Dharmavaram Sections of Karimnagar Range and issue transport permits for harvested Bamboos strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the agreement & proceedings dated 26.10.2009 by respondent No.1.” It has come out from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner is permitted to harvest bamboo during the entire months of June, 2010, October, 2010 and November, 2010, for a total period of 100 days and the total quantity of bamboo permitted to be harvested by the petitioner was 49,150 as against the agreed quantity of 2,91,069. The complaint made in this contempt case is that despite the above-mentioned order of this Court and proceedings, dated 19.05.2010, of the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar West Division, the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to harvest the bamboo. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid heavy emphasis on the proceedings, dated 26.10.2009, which does not contain stipulation regarding time limit. It is however, conceded that agreement, dated 27.10.2009, contains a time stipulation. The learned counsel placed reliance on proceedings, dated 19.05.2010, wherein respondent No.1 has permitted the petitioner to continue to harvest from 01.10.2010 till the agreed quantity is harvested. On a conjoint reading of these proceedings, the learned counsel has submitted that by preventing the petitioner from harvesting the bamboo from the month of November, 2010, the respondents have indulged in deliberate violation of the orders of this Court. The learned Government Pleader for Forest opposing these contentions submitted that the interim order of this Court referred to proceedings, dated 26.10.2009, and also the agreement, and that though the proceedings, dated 26.10.2009, does not stipulate time limit, the agreement admittedly contains a time stipulation in this regard. The learned Government Pleader further argued that respondent No.1 has issued proceedings, dated 19.05.2010, wherein he has stated that if harvest of agreement quantity of bamboo is not completed by 30.06.2010, the petitioner may commence harvesting from 01.10.2010, but he shall complete the same by the end of November, 2010. In my opinion, in the face of the various proceedings referred to above, it cannot be held that the respondents are guilty of deliberate violation of the orders of this Court. The proceedings referred to above are susceptible of more than one view. At best, the petitioner is entitled to avail the remedy by way of substantive proceedings, if his rights flowing under the various proceedings and the agreement referred to above are defeated by the respondents. The proceedings of contempt being quasi criminal in nature, unless the petitioner is able to establish that there is intentional violation of the order of this Court, the respondents cannot be punished. In the premises as above, the contempt case is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy by initiating appropriate proceedings. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 24.12.2010 VGB