THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.234 of 2011 Dated 06th June, 2011 Between: Gottumukkala Satyanarayana Raju …Petitioner And The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Muniraja Irugu Counsel for respondent No.7: Sri G.Elisha The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 25.01.2011, in W.P.M.P.No.41576 of 2010 in W.P.No.32714 of 2010. The petitioner filed the above noted writ petition for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not protecting 30’ China Amiram Gram Panchayat public road situated in R.S.No.40 of China Amiram Revenue Village. The plea of the petitioner in the said writ petition was that the wife of respondent No.8 has sold a plot in his favour and that the documents executed by her would clearly reveal that a provision for 30’ wide road was made to provide ingress and egress to the petitioner’s and others plots and that though respondent No.8 was trying to close the road by excavating trenches and raising a fence, respondent No.7 has not taken any action. This Court has granted the above-mentioned interim order directing respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the writ petition, namely, the Mandal Development Officer, Bhimavaram Mandal and the Panchayat Secretary, China Amiram Gram Panchayat, to protect and maintain 30’ China Amiram Gram Panchayat public road leading to Vempadu Village in order to provide access to the petitioner’s house. In the contempt case, it is the complaint of the petitioner that despite the said interim order, which was brought to the notice of respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the writ petition through written representation, dated 02.02.2011, they have not complied with the same by not preventing respondent No.8 from raising fence and closing the road. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Panchayat Secretary, China Amiram Gram Panchayat, wherein it is inter alia averred that no 30’ wide road is in existence as alleged by the petitioner and hence, there is no question of protecting or maintaining the same. At the hearing, Sri Muniraja Irugu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that a road in fact exists. He has taken me through some of the sale deeds purportedly executed by the wife of respondent No.8, wherein reference to the existence of a road is made. In my opinion, the question of existence of a road needs to be adjudicated in the writ petition, with reference to the approved layout and other relevant documents. Unless there is unimpeachable evidence to show that a road exists, the respondents cannot be punished for the alleged violation of the orders of this Court and therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case of wilful violation of the order of this Court. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the pending writ petition. As a sequel to dismissal of the contempt case, Application Nos.290 and 417 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th June, 2011 VGB