THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.642 of 2010 Dated 27th October, 2010 Between: Gusini Satyanarayana and others …Petitioners And J. Anjaneyulu and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. P. Venkateswara Rao for Mr. M. Prabhakara Rao, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3:-- The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioners, who are Sarpanchs of various Gram Panchayts, complaining of wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents of the order dated 10.09.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.24160 of 2009 in W.P.No.18465 of 2009. By the abovementioned order, this Court, while observing that the right of the Gram Panchayts to execute certain works as indicated in G.O.Ms.Nos.38, 137, 409 and 571 cannot be said to be exclusive as there are certain exceptions, respondent Nos.2 to 4, 6 and 7 therein are bound to follow the said G.Os. Accordingly, a direction was given to the said respondents to follow the said G.Os. while making entrustment of works to the petitioners. In the Contempt Case, the petitioners alleged that despite the said order, respondent No.2 has entrusted works to Mandal Engineering Officer, Gurla and thereby violated the direction given by this Court. In her counter-affidavit, respondent No.2 has inter alia stated that after receipt of the order of this Court, no work was executed departmentally in contravention of the abovementioned G.Os., that except petitioner No.5, no other petitioner has approached her for execution of works and that they are not interested in implementing the scheme obviously for political reasons. It is further averred that whatever works that were executed departmentally were prior to the passing of the orders by this Court and that no works were executed in respect of petitioner Nos.1 to 4 Gram Panchayats. Respondent No.2 further pleaded that as and when petitioner Nos.1 to 4 come forward, works will be entrusted to them. In the reply-affidavit, the petitioners denied those averments and also filed the bills and vouchers to show that on 09.10.2010 i.e., one month after passing of the order of this Court, the Mandal Engineering Officer was supplied material. In my opinion, the interim order passed by this Court is not specific. Directions which are generic in nature have been issued. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents acted against the specific orders of this Court warranting a finding that the respondents have indulged in violation of the orders of this Court. However, in deference to the orders of this Court, respondent No.2 has come out with the plea that the works are not being executed departmentally after receipt of the order of this Court and that as and when the petitioners approach her showing interest in execution of the available works, she will entrust the works to them. In view of this categorical undertaking of respondent No.2, the Contempt Case is closed. If respondent No.2 fails to entrust the works on the specific request made by the petitioners, they are entitled to take appropriate steps against respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th October, 2010 GHN