THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.334 of 2011 Dated 06th June, 2011 Between: Jakkula John Raju and another …Petitioners And Smt.Vani Prasad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.5: AGP for Irrigation Counsel for respondent No.4: GP for Fisheries The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 01.06.2010, in W.P.M.P.No.3294 of 2010 in W.P.No.2479 of 2010. By the said order, this Court directed the respondents to take appropriate action on the petitioners’ representations, dated 07.09.2009 and 30.11.2009, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Complaining that the respondents failed to dispose of the petitioners’ representations despite the above- mentioned interim order, the present contempt case is filed. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 i.e., the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Eluru, West Godavari District, it is inter alia stated that respondent No.4 has conducted an enquiry into the petitioners’ representation, dated 30.11.2009, that he along with the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Eluru and Village Revenue Officer of Pothunuru Village, inspected the lands mentioned by the petitioners in their representation and that the petitioners were requested to attend the enquiry on 11.12.2009. It is further stated that as the petitioners have not attended the inspection site, respondent No.6 in the writ petition was granted licence to dig the fish tank. It is also stated that on 11.12.2009 a report was sent to the District Collector, which was also sent to the petitioners on 13.06.2010 by registered post with acknowledgment due. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, a reference to the report of respondent No.4 sent to the District Collector was made. It is further stated that in order to give further opportunity to the petitioners, a notice was issued by respondent No.2 on 16.05.2011 for considering their representation, dated 30.11.2009 and that as the petitioners have failed to produce any further material, their representation was rejected vide endorsement bearing Roc.No.941/20089(E), dated 17.05.2011. At the hearing, Sri Kambhampati Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that while his clients have not received the report said to have been sent by respondent No.4, he is not aware whether his clients have received endorsement, dated 17.05.2011, or not. The facts noted above would clearly show that the petitioners’ representations have been disposed of by respondent Nos.2 and 4. Whether the report submitted by respondent No.4 to the District Collector was sent to the petitioners as claimed in the former’s counter affidavit or not shall not assume much relevance because at any rate respondent No.4 has disposed of the petitioners’ representations after passing of the interim order by this Court. If at all, the only issue that needs to be considered is whether respondent Nos.2 and 4 have passed orders within the time stipulated by this Court or not. Having regard to the facts pleaded by respondent Nos.2 and 4, in my opinion, no wilful violation of the orders of this Court can be attributed to them even assuming that the petitioners’ representation, dated 30.11.2009, was not disposed of within time. The petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit controverting the claim of respondent No.4 that he has sent a copy of the report to the petitioners under acknowledgement on 13.06.2010 itself. In the light of the above facts, I do not find any merit in the contempt case and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioners from questioning the order of rejection of their representation. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th June, 2011 VGB