IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE NO : 590 of 2009 (Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated _______ in WPMP No.________ /WP No. ________ Between: 1 Prakash S/o. Devidas Rao Kulkarni R/o. Tandur Village, Raikote Mandal, Zaheerabad Taluk, Medak District. 2 Sakkubai W/o. Bhaskar Rao, D/o. Devidas Rao Kulkarni R/o. H.No.17-1-471, Krishna Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Secretary to Government (Projects) Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Singoor Project Sanga Reddy, Medak District. (1st Respondent not necessary to this contempt case) .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE NO.590 OF 2009 ORDER: The order of this Court, in WP No.28605 of 2008 dated 30.12.2008, merely required the 2nd respondent Special Deputy Collector to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 14.8.2008 within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. A counter-affidavit is now filed stating that the petitioner’s representation was considered and rejected within the aforementioned period. While Sri P. Vinodkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to make submissions on the merits of the order, it is not within the purview of this Court, in Contempt Proceedings, to do so. All that this Court is required to enquire is whether the order passed has been violated and, if so, whether the violation is willful and deliberate. Since the order of this Court has been complied with, the respondents cannot be said to have violated the aforementioned order of this Court. Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would further request this Court to give liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order. The said request is mis-conceived since any orders passed in contempt proceedings will have no bearing whatsoever on the validity or otherwise of the order passed by the authorities in compliance with the order of this Court. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, dismissed. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANTAHAN,J Date:07.08.2009. Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN ORDER: in CONTEMPT CASE NO.590 OF 2009 Date:07.08.2009. Gk.