IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.307 of 2011 Between: M/s. Sai Ram Fruit Company Hyderabad. ..... Petitioner AND K.R. Kishore, The Principal Secretary to Government of A.P., Agricultural & Cooperation (Agri. Marketing) Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.K. Chakravarthy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Agriculture The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.307 of 2011 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 18.03.2010 in Writ Petition No.6064 of 2010, whereby this Court directed respondent No.1 to issue appropriate proceedings in relation to resolution dated 10.01.2009 passed by the Agricultural Market Committee, Gaddiannaram. I have heard Sri K.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondent No.1. A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.1 issued Memo No.554/AM.II.2/2010-4, dated 27.05.2010, wherein he has directed the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing to consider the resolution passed by the Agricultural Market Committee, Gaddiannaram for allotment of shop in the ground floor in the fruit market of Gaddiannaram to the petitioner, duly following the procedure, as and when the Police Station of Chaitanyapuri is vacated within a period of one year. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the said Memo, the stall has not been allotted to the petitioner. From a perusal of the order of this Court, it is evident that the direction given by this Court is confined to respondent No.1 to issue appropriate proceedings on the resolution passed by the Agricultural Market Committee, Gaddiannaram. By issuing the above-noted memo, respondent No.1 has complied with the direction given by this Court. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the contents of the said memo or the inaction on the part of any officer subordinate to respondent No.1 in carrying out the directions given by respondent No.1, he is entitled to invoke appropriate remedy. The petitioner failed to make out any case of deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court by any of the respondents. For the abovementioned reasons, the contempt case is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.03.2011 ES