HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.68 of 2011 Date: 18.04.2011 Between : Mohammed Younus. ….Petitioner And Shri Dana Kishore, District Collector, Ranga Reddy District & another. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.68 of 2011 ORDER : This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging that the respondents have violated the directions of this Court in the order, dated 6th of October 2009, passed in W.P.M.P.No.27134 of 2009 in W.P.No.20492 of 2009. By the aforesaid order, directions were issued to the respondents to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner purported to have been filed, seeking regularization of the subject land in terms of the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.166 of 2008, and to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of said order. Along with this contempt application, the petitioner himself has filed a copy of the order, dated 10th February 2010, issued by the 1st respondent in Letter No.E5/6502/2009. A perusal f the said order makes it clear that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in the order, dated 6th of October 2009, the claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected by recording reasons. Although it is pleaded by the petitioner, who appeared in person, that the consideration of his application is not in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.166 of 2008, such aspect cannot be gone into in the contempt proceedings. If the petitioner feels that the consideration of his application for regularization is not in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.166 of 2008, it is for him to question the validity of the rejection order, but the same will not amount to contemptuous action on the part of respondents, so as to proceed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Though there was some delay in passing the order, as much the order was passed even by the time the contempt application is filed, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully and deliberately violated the directions of this Court, attracting the contempt proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, the contempt case is closed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved of the rejection orders, dated 10th February 2010, issued by the 1st respondent in Letter No.E5/6502/2009, it is open for the petitioner to question the same. _________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th April 2011 ajr