HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Contempt Case No.520 of 2011 Date: April 28, 2011 Between: Pathi Jalapathi Reddy, S/o.P. Anji Reddy, aged about 60 years, Occ: Employee, R/o.Flat No.403 & 404, Sri Raja Rajeswara Apartments, Street No.8, Ravindra Nagar Colony, Habsiguda, Hyderabad … Petitioner And Sri A.K.Khan, Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Order: This contempt case is filed alleging that respondents have willfully violated the directions of this Court dated 25- 02-2011, issued in W.P.M.P.No.2929 of 2011 in W.P.No.2357 of 2011. This court, by the aforesaid order, issued the following directions: “The second respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Hyderabad, is directed to get investigate into the complaint of the petitioner by any officer working under him other than the third respondent and file counter-affidavit clearly indicating how many flats are in possession of the fourth respondent, (who has been impleaded) by the next date of hearing. Post after two (2) weeks for counter. Pending further orders, there shall be status quo as on today to be maintained with regard to flats in question.” When the matter is taken up, it is brought to the notice of this Court that a further counter-affidavit, sworn by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Hyderabad, is filed in the writ petition. In the said counter- affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner is in possession of flat Nos.403 and 103 whereas the fourth respondent is in possession of flat Nos.401, 402 and 404. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner fourth respondent has forcibly occupied flat No.404, it is not possible for this Court to examine the same in this contempt case. While it is open to the petitioner to file his objections by way of protest petition before the Magistrate concerned on the investigation report filed by the investigating agency, in view of the fact that the second respondent has got the matter investigated by an Assistant Commissioner of Police and filed counter-affidavit stating that the fourth respondent is in possession of flat No.404 also, it cannot be said there is violation of the directions of this Court. Contempt case is accordingly closed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned by way of an independent complaint or a protest petition. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 28, 2011 MRR