IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 108 OF 2009 Between: K.Dharma Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND Sri S.D.Kousik, Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi .... RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 108 OF 2009 O R D E R : This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order passed by this Court dated 24.10.2006 in W.P.No.3789 of 2004, which was disposed of with the following directions: “ Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Freedom Fighters Division), the petitioners’ claim for grant of pension be decided by passing a speaking order. The decision taken by the competent authority shall be communicated to each of the petitioners by registered post at the end of four months’ period. If the petitioners or any one of them feel aggrieved by the decision taken by the Government of India, then they/he shall be free to avail appropriate legal remedy. In response to the notice ordered by this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs stating that in pursuance of the directions of this Court, the claim of the petitioner was considered on the basis of the documents and from the report of the State Government it was found that the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility conditions and evidentiary criteria and therefore, his claim was not acceptable. The said fact was informed to the petitioner by letter dated 26.09.2007. A copy of the said letter has also been placed before this Court along with the counter affidavit. Having regard to the fact that the order was already passed and the same was communicated to the petitioner, no further enquiry is necessary in this contempt case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the respondent by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law, if so advised. No costs. ____________ Date: 06.04.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd