HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Contempt Case No.845 of 2011 Date: 14-10-2011 Between Smt. Siripurapu Lakshmi Devi … Petitioner and B.Ramesh Prasad, Chief General Manager/O & CS, Corporate Office, APEPDCL, P & T Colony, Seethammadhara, Near Gurudwara Junction, Visakhapatnam-530 013 … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Contempt Case No.845 of 2011 Order: Heard Sri S.Sri Rama Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. G.Jyothi Eswar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner claims to be owner of Flat No.G2 in Shivam Residency, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam. She claims to have applied for electricity service connection and as the power connection was not given, she filed writ petition W.P.No.10696 of 2011. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, granted an interim order dated 19-4-2011 in W.P.M.P.No.13149 of 2011 directing the respondent to consider issuing power connection. The petitioner has filed this contempt case complaining that the respondent has not considered the application and thereby violated the orders of this Court. 3. The respondent is present. He has filed a Counter-Affidavit stating that there is an existing service connection in respect of the said premises in the name of one Smt. R.Kanakamma, who is said to be the landlady of the premises. Therefore, it is not possible to grant 2nd service connection to the same premises. He has accordingly passed an order dated 11-7-2011. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the said order dated 11-7-2011 is not tenable, in view of the fact that the petitioner has purchased the premises under a registered sale deed dated 07-5-2007, whereas the service connection was granted in the name of the landlady on 25-6-2009. He, therefore, contends that granting service connection in the name of Smt. R.Kanakamma itself is illegal since she was not the owner as on the said date. The learned counsel further contends that the respondent failed to act on the interim orders of this Court and in fact, he is guilty of contempt by passing an order dated 25-6-2011. 5. I am unable to accept the said contention. It is true that in the order dated 25-6-2011 the respondent has stated that the application of the petitioner would be considered after receipt of judgment of this Court in the writ petition. I am of the opinion that, that by itself does not constitute contempt. It is true that even though this Court passed interim orders in the writ petition on 19-4-2011, the respondent did not take steps pursuant to the said orders until 11-7-2011, but, however, realizing the same, the respondent has tendered unconditional apology. I am of the further opinion that the respondent has complied with the interim orders of this Court in the writ petition by passing the order dated 11-7-2011. 6. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not violated the orders of this Court and the contempt case is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order dated 11-7-2011 of the respondent in accordance with law. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 14th October, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Contempt Case No.845 of 2011 14th October, 2011. (Ak)