HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.724 of 2010 Date : 05.09.2011 Between : Sathi Ramasubba Reddy & another. …..Petitioners And Nakka Simhadri Appanna & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.724 of 2010 ORDER : This contempt case is filed, alleging that respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in the order, dated 16th February 2010, passed in W.P.No.3223 of 2010. In the writ petition, it was the grievance of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent was making constructions by encroaching on the public road. This Court, in the aforesaid order, directed the Commissioner, Ramachandrapuram Municipality in East Godavari District, to ensure that the 2nd respondent shall not make any unauthorized constructions on the road margin. In this contempt case, it is the case of the petitioners that inspite of such a direction, no action has been taken by the Commissioner and constructions are allowed in willful violation of the directions issued by this Court. Separate counter affidavits are filed by respondents 1 and 2. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Ramachandrapuram Municipality, while stating that the Municipality has taken action under Section 228 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 with regard to the unauthorized constructions commenced and carried on by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that no constructions are allowed on the road margin (joint passage). Same was also reiterated in the additional counter and also in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. It is not in dispute that the area in question is not covered by any approved layout. In the absence of definite planning for roads, coupled with the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of the Ramachandrapuram Municipality that constructions are not allowed on the road margin, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to proceed further under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. As it is also stated that steps are already taken with regard to some unauthorized constructions, same is a matter to be examined in the writ petition. In the absence of definite road width in an approved layout and in view of the stand of the 1st respondent that he has not allowed any constructions on the road margin (joint passage), it cannot be said that there is willful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th September 2011 ajr