THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CONTEMPT CASE No.81 of 2011 Date: 06.04.2011 Between : Sabavat Rukman Naik … Petitioner and Sri Appa Rao, Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CONTEMPT CASE No.81 of 2011 ORDER : This contempt case has been filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3961 of 2004, by which the 1st respondent-Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department was directed to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order after issuing notices to the parties concerned. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 26.2.2004 passed by the 1st respondent in Memo No.18821/M1/2003 M.A., rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner wherein approval of the layout sanctioned by the 2nd respondent-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation was under challenge. On considering various facts and circumstances, this Court set aside the said order dated 26.2.2004 and remanded the matter to the 1st respondent for reconsideration and disposal in accordance with law within the stipulated time as mentioned above. As the 1st respondent failed to dispose of the revision petition within the stipulated time, the petitioner has filed the present contempt case. 3. When the contempt case came up before this Court on 7.2.2011, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration took notice on behalf of the 1st respondent and undertook to file counter. The matter was, therefore, adjourned for a period of four weeks. Again when the matter was listed on 7.3.2011, there was no compliance nor any counter filed by the 1st respondent. This Court, therefore, directed personal appearance of the 1st respondent. 4. Accordingly, the 1st respondent appeared in person before this Court today and also filed his counter affidavit stating that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2.2.2010, he issued a Memo dated 3.4.2010, followed by reminders dated 17.4.2010, 4.5.2010 and 15.7.2010 to the 2nd respondent- Corporation calling for a report. It is stated that he conducted a meeting with the 2nd respondent-Corporation on 14.7.2010 for a detailed report in the matter. However, the 2nd respondent- Corporation could not submit the report in time along with the records and could submit the report only on 21.2.2011. It is also stated that in order to comply with the order of this Court, he immediately posted the matter for hearing on 23.2.2011 and the matter was adjourned to 16.3.2011 on which date the matter was heard despite the absence of the contesting respondents and ultimately passed order on 30.3.2011. 5. The 1st respondent, being aware of the fact that the order was not passed within the stipulated time, has tendered an unconditional apology for the delay caused in the disposal of the revision petition. Although there is a delay, in view of the explanation offered by the 1st respondent as to the steps taken by him for the disposal of the matter, which ultimately resulted in disposal of the revision petition on 30.3.2011, I am not inclined to initiate any action against the respondents in this contempt case. 6. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order dated 30.3.2011 passed by the 1st respondent, if he is so advised and pursue the remedy available to him under law. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 06.04.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CONTEMPT CASE No.81 of 2011 06.04.2011 (Msr)