THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Contempt Case No.1444 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, dated 25.02.2009, passed in W.P.No.21745 of 2008. The petitioner filed W.P.No.21745 of 2008 aggrieved by the inaction of the first respondent-GHMC in taking necessary steps to stop the unauthorized constructions being carried on in the neighbouring house bearing No.3-6-369/A/22, Street No.1, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, by the third respondent, M/s.Sri Sikara Constructions, in spite of making a complaint on 02.09.2008. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by order, dated 25.02.2009, directing the first respondent-GHMC to take necessary action on the complaint of the petitioner, after issuing notice to the unofficial respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Alleging violation of the said order, dated 25.02.2009, the petitioner filed the present contempt case inter alia contending that in spite of the directions of this Court to take necessary action against the third respondent, and despite his repeated oral representations, no action has been taken so far and in the meanwhile, the third respondent has made unauthorized constructions in the subject premises and without issuing notice to the petitioner as directed by this Court, the official respondents have regularized the same. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court in the present contempt case, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter stating that the Corporation granted permission for construction of stilt + 5 upper floors in respect of premises bearing No.3-6-369/A/22, 22/1 and 22/2, in favour of Taligama Prakash and others, who entered into a development agreement with the third respondent herein. That subsequent to the same, the third respondent made constructions in deviation to the sanctioned plan with regard to set backs. Thereupon, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21745 of 2008 and pursuant to the directions given by this Court in the said writ petition, the Town Planning Section of Circle-9 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has issued a notice on 06.04.2009 under Section 452 of the HMC Act, 1955 to the owner of the premises as well as to the third respondent directing them to set right the constructions made in deviation to the sanctioned plan or otherwise, the same would be removed by the Corporation. It is also stated in the counter that pursuant to the notice, dated 06.04.2009, the third respondent as well as the owners of the premises submitted explanations on 20.04.2009 stating that the deviations in the set backs in no way affect the rights of the neighbours, that they have filed applications under Building Penalization Scheme in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007, for regularization of the deviations and that they have also filed O.S.No.3363 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein status quo was granted on 21.10.2008. Pursuant to the explanation submitted, the Assistant City Planner, Circle-9, GHMC, disposed of the complaint of the petitioner on 06.05.2009 and the same was also communicated to the petitioner. It is further stated that subsequently the application submitted by the third respondent and the owners of the premises under BPS, has been considered and having found that the constructions made in deviation to the sanctioned plan are eligible for regularization, the Corporation has regularized the deviations vide proceedings, dated 05.10.2009, which was also communicated to the petitioner. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.29075 of 2009 and the same is pending. Thus, respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that they have not committed any violation of the orders passed by this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though the petitioner contends that in spite of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.21745 of 2009 to take action against the third respondent for making unauthorized constructions in the subject premises, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not taken any action so far, it is clear from the counter that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Corporation has issued a notice, dated 06.04.2009, under Section 452 of the HMC Act, 1955, to the owners and the third respondent herein directing them to set right the deviations made contrary to the sanctioned plan and after considering the explanation submitted, the Corporation has disposed of the complaint of the petitioner vide proceedings, dated 06.05.2009, which was communicated to the petitioner. Apart from that, the application purported to have been made by the owners and the third respondent in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901, dated 31.12.2007, for regularization of the deviations made, was considered and having found that they are eligible for regularization, the Corporation has regularized the deviations vide proceedings, dated 05.10.2009, which was also communicated to the petitioner. Coming to the second contention raised by the petitioner that the first respondent has not issued any notice to him before regularizing the deviations, in spite of the directions of this Court, it is to be noted that while disposing of the writ petition, this Court has directed the first respondent to take necessary action on the complaint of the petitioner, after issuing notice to the unofficial respondent, but not the petitioner. The relevant portion reads as under: “…Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to take necessary action on the complaint of the petitioner, after issuing notice to the unofficial respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent has not issued any notice to the petitioner as per the orders of this Court cannot be accepted. Be that as it may, during the course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed W.P.No.29075 of 2009 challenging the proceedings, dated 05.10.2009, regularizing the deviations made in the subject premises and the same is pending. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no contempt has been made out and the contempt case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:18.03.2010 VGB