THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Contempt Case No.114 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed W.P.No.23379 of 2004 against the respondents feeling aggrieved by the notice got published on 02.12.2004 for sale of the property mortgaged by the petitioner. After hearing both the parties, this Court disposed of the writ petition on 08.02.2008 giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation for extending the benefit of one time settlement and similar liberty to the respondents to take decision thereon. The petitioner states that he made a representation on 30.06.2008 and complains that no action has been thereon by the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner was given liberty to make a representation seeking the benefit of one time settlement. However, the respondents were not placed under any obligation either to consider it or to extend any benefit to the petitioner. Liberty was given to them to take a decision. Even assuming that the respondents did not exercise their liberty in relation to the application of the petitioner, it cannot be said that it would amount to contempt. The petitioner can work out other remedies, such as by filing another writ petition narrating the subsequent events. The contempt case is accordingly closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 02.03.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Contempt Case No.114 of 2010 Date: 02.03.2010 JSU