The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Contempt Case No.1109 of 2011 Date: 29.10.2011 Between: Bikkini Phanindra ..... Petitioner AND The M.S.N.A.U.P.G. Centre, Affiliated to Andhra University, Rep. by its Special Officer, Atchampet Junction, Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar The Court made the following: Order: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of Order, dated 27-07-2010, in WP.No.25624 of 2009, by the respondent. The petitioner filed the above-mentioned Writ Petition, which was disposed of by this Court on the basis of the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel for the M.S.N.A.U.P.G.Center/ respondent No.2 therein that his client is not proposing to close the existing 40 feet road and that the proposed fencing is confined only to the lands allotted to respondent No.2 and the Government Poramboke lands excluding the road. Alleging that this order has been violated by the respondent by laying a fence through the 40 feet road, thereby, denying access to the petitioner, the present Contempt Case is filed. On 14-10-2011, a counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent wherein it was stated that, out of anxiety to protect the land belonging to the University, a fence, closing the 40 feet road, was laid. An undertaking, to move the existing fence to an extent of 40 feet, was given in the counter-affidavit. Accordingly, the case was adjourned. Today, at the hearing, Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, filed photographs to show that, to the extent of 40 feet, the fence has been removed in order to provide, the petitioner, access to the 40 feet road. I have carefully perused the photographs filed by the respondent and also the photograph produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. From these photographs, I am convinced that the respondent has provided access to the petitioner as undertaken in the Writ Petition and that continuation of the Contempt proceedings against it is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed and the respondent is discharged from the Contempt proceedings. ________________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 29th October, 2011 LUR