IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No. 1684 OF 2009 Between: Smt. V.Saraswathi ..... PETITIONER AND Mohan Reddy, The Commissioner, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.1684 OF 2009 O R D E R : This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order of this Court in W.P.No.26696 of 2008, which was disposed of with directions as under: “ Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation (respondent No.1) and having regard to the controversy involved, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to make a complaint in writing before the respondent No.1 furnishing the particulars of the alleged illegal constructions made by the respondents 3 to 7. If any such representation/complaint is made, the first respondent shall receive the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such application/complaint. However, it is made clear that before passing any such order, the respondents 3 to 7 herein shall be given an opportunity to rebut the allegations made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.” It is alleged by the petitioner that pursuant to the above order though she made a representation on 05.08.2009 requesting the 1st respondent to remove the encroachments made by the respondents 3 to 7, the 1st respondent failed to take any action. The 1st respondent – Commissioner, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati filed a detailed counter affidavit explaining the steps taken after receiving the representation of the petitioner. It is also stated that on 06.04.2010 the order passed upon the representation of the petitioner was communicated to her. In the circumstances, no further enquiry is necessary in the contempt case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the 1st respondent by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law, if so advised. No costs. ​ ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 11.06.2010 Ivd