THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Contempt Case No. 505 of 2006 Dated: 27.10.2010 Between: Hayyala Dyavadeenam, Khammam District. … Petitioners And Kambhampati Susheela, Khammam District and another. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Contempt Case No. 505 of 2006 O R D E R : The petitioner herein is the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.8037 of 2005. This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the interim order dated 11.04.2005 granted in W.P.M.P.No.10671 of 2005 in W.P.No.8037 of 2005, which reads and under: “Notice. Smt. Jyothi Eswar takes notice for the first respondent seeks time for filing counter. Post after one week. Pending further orders, there shall be stay of demolition as prayed for. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not proceed with any further constructions on the land in question.” The main writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the Bhadrachalam Gram Panchayat dated 04.04.2005 issued under Section 121 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 calling upon the writ petitioner/ first respondent herein to remove the alleged illegal construction being made is arbitrary and illegal. In W.P.M.P.No.10671 of 2005, the writ petitioner sought interim stay of demolition pursuant to the impugned notice dated 04.04.2005. While directing rule nisi in the main writ petition, the above said interim order was passed by this Court on 11.04.2005. The present contempt case has been filed alleging that contrary to the order passed by this Court the writ petitioner had proceeded with construction and completed the building. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit in the contempt case stating that by the date of the interim order dated 11.04.2005, the building was already constructed up to the slab level. In compliance with the order passed by this Court that the writ petitioner shall not proceed with any further construction, she had not laid any further slabs but had only proceeded with the brick work in order to make the building habitable. It is stated that she is a house wife and was under a bona fide impression that under the interim order dated 11.04.2005 she was restrained from making further construction i.e. laying any further slabs. It is also stated that the petitioner had no other residential house and after completing the brick work, she has been presently residing in the said house. While stating that she had no intention to disobey the order passed by this Court, the petitioner tendered her unconditional apology. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. The fact that by the date of the interim order dated 11.0.2005, the slab was already laid is not in dispute. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had only proceeded with the brick work so as to make the house habitable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the reasons explained by the first respondent in her counter affidavit, I do not find any substance in the allegation that the action of the first respondent amounts to deliberate disobedience to the order passed by this Court. Hence, the Contempt case is dismissed. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date:27.10.2010 KLP