THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.C.No.951 of 2010 Date : 24-9-2010 Between : Tatineni Satyavathi w/o.T.Satyanarayana Occ: Agriculturist, r/o.Penamaluru village and Mandal, Krishna District. .. Petitioner and D.Chandra Rao, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Y.Subrahmanyam Counsel for respondent No.1: Counsel for respondent No.2 : Smt.K.Aruna, Standing Counsel for V.G.T.M.U.D.A. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.C.No.951 of 2010 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 23-7-2009 in W.P.No.13614 of 2009. This Court, by the above mentioned order, while disposing of the Writ Petition directed that without approval of the Irrigation Department, respondent No.2 cannot proceed with the work which is likely to reduce the width of New Nidamanuru channel and affect the interests of ayacutdars and that before undertaking such work, respondent No.2 being the statutory body, is required to obtain necessary permissions and sanctions from the Irrigation Department. In this Contempt Case, the petitioner pleaded that in deliberate violation of the above mentioned directions, respondent No.2 has proceeded with the construction of the road by closing the channel completely. In obedience to the notice issued in the Contempt Case, respondent No.2 filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein he has denied any violation of the order of this Court. Along with his counter affidavit, respondent No.2 has filed the Minutes of the meeting dated 19-1-2010 with Irrigation, Revenue and V.G.T.M.U.D.A. officials, letter dated 10-6-2010 of respondent No.1 and Memo dated 25-6- 2010 of the Engineer in Chief (Irrigation), Erramanzil, Hyderabad. A perusal of the Minutes dated 19-1-2010 would reveal that the participants in the meeting have discussed various pros and cons of laying the proposed 100 feet Master Plan road along New Nidamanuru Channel by reducing the width of the channel in view of drastic reduction in ayacut and in order to serve public interest for ensuring smooth traffic. In pursuance of the consensus arrived at in the meeting, respondent No.1 has addressed letter dated 10-6-2010 to the Engineer in Chief, Irrigation Wing, wherein he has proposed that the road will be developed and the canal will be extended towards Eastern side as per the specification made by the Irrigation Department i.e., to a width of 1.5 mt. and depth of 0.60 mt. section. The said proposal was considered by the Engineer in Chief and was approved by his Memo dated 25-6-2010. From these documents, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 has started laying the road without the approval of the competent authority as directed by this Court. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the plea of the petitioner that the respondents have violated the orders of this court. The Contempt Case is accordingly closed. ___________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 24-9-2010 AM