HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.280 of 2010 Dated: 27-04-2010 Between: Smt. G. Vijayalakshmi. … Petitioner And Sri Devi Singh, Commissioner, Chirala Municipal Council, Prakasam District. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.280 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed, alleging deliberate violation of the directions issued by this Court in the order, dated 24th of July 2009, passed in W.P.No.14876 of 2009. When it was the allegation of the petitioner in the writ petition that there was an attempt by the respondent- Municipal Commissioner to construct a road through her private property admeasuring 352 square yards, situated in D.No.76-2 of Perala village, this Court, while issuing notice before admission, granted directions to the respondents not to lay any road from the land belonging to the petitioner, without following due process of law. In this contempt case, it is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of such a direction issued by this Court, the respondents have demolished her compound wall. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondent-Commissioner of Chirala Municipality. In the counter, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner has made some illegal constructions, without obtaining prior approval from the competent authorities, and when the respondents have inquired with regard to the relevant documents in response to the complaint filed by the affected parties, she has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.14876 of 2009. With regard to the alleged demolition of compound wall, it is categorically stated that the respondents are in no way concerned with such demolition, and that some affected parties made access to protect their rights and removed the compound wall. Earlier, the matter was listed on 16th and 20th of April 2010, and thereafter, today, and on these three occasions, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that the respondents have not taken any steps for demolition of the compound wall of the petitioner, and in view of such categorical denial by the respondents, it cannot be said that there is violation of the directions issued by this Court, as alleged by the petitioner, attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. For the aforesaid reasons, this contempt case is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th April 2010 ajr