THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Contempt Case No. 113 of 2010 Dated: 07.04.2010 Between: Smt. V.Annapurnamma, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 6 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Contempt Case No. 113 of 2010 O R D E R : This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 12.06.2009 in W.P.No.11424 of 2009, which was disposed of with directions as under: “Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 to 6 to consider the representations made by the petitioner with regard to the alleged illegal constructions being made by the respondent No.7 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that the respondent No.7 should be given an opportunity to rebut the allegations made against him and to participate in the enquiry before passing the final order as directed above.” It is alleged in this contempt case that in spite of the specific directions by this Court that the enquiry should be completed within eight weeks, the respondents failed to comply with the same. It is also stated that though the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 17.12.2009, the respondents did not respond. A counter affidavit has been field by the Commissioner of the Warangal Municipal Corporation on behalf of the respondents 2 to 5 stating that even before the order was passed by this Court in W.P.No.11424 of 2009, the Corporation issued a notice dated 28.04.2009 under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) calling upon the son of the 7th respondent, who had obtained the building permission, not to make any constructions deviating the sanctioned plan. Since he failed to respond, the Corporation had issued notice under Section 636 of the Act, dated 18.05.2009 and removed the deviated portions. At that stage, the son of the 7th respondent filed O.S.No.444 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Junior civil Judge, Warangal. By order dated 12.06.2009 in I.A.No.629 of 2009, the civil Court directed that status quo shall be maintained. It is explained that in compliance with the order of this Court dated 12.06.2009, though a notice was served on the son of the 7th respondent on 19.08.2009, the further steps could not be taken in view of the status quo ordered by the civil Court in O.S.No.444 of 2009. It is further stated that though the deviated portions could not be removed in view of the orders of the status quo granted by the civil Court, further constructions by the son of the 7th respondent were stopped. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, A.P, Hyderabad-6th respondent on the same lines. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. From the material placed before this Court it is clear that the son of the 7th respondent, who was allegedly making unauthorised constructions filed O.S.No.444 of 2009 and there was an order of status quo even prior to the order of this Court dated 12.06.2009 in W.P.11424 of 2009. As could be seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, pursuant to the order of this Court a notice was issued to the son of the 7th respondent and the necessary steps have also been taken restraining him from proceeding with further constructions. The said fact has not been disputed before this Court by the petitioner. So far as the removal of the deviated portions are concerned, admittedly, the same is the subject matter of O.S.No.444 of 2009 pending before the civil Court. It is also not in dispute that the said suit was filed much prior to the order of this Court in W.P.No.11424 of 2009. In the circumstances, it is for the petitioner if aggrieved, to take the appropriate steps by getting herself impleaded to the proceedings pending before the civil Court and it is not a fit matter for taking cognizance under the contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 07.04.2010 KLP