THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No :529 of 2010 Date: 21.6.2010 Between: Pilli Ashalu ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Neelakanta Nath Reddy, Divisional ForestOfficer, Karimnagar West Division and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : M. Muralidhar for Mr. P.Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Forests The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO :529 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 18.3.2010 in W.P.M.P. No. 7861 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 6109 of 2010 . By the said order, this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to harvest Bamboos in Coupe Nos. I,II and III comprised in Compartment Nos. 504 & 505 VSS Bommireddypally beat of Dharmavaram Section of Karimnagar Range and issue transport permits for harvested Bamboos strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the agreement and proceedings dated 26.10.2009. The contempt case was admitted on 27.4.2010. On 11.6.2010, all the contemnors, including the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests were present in the Court and submitted that the order of this Court was complied with by the respondents by issuing necessary transport permits. While dispensing with the presence of the contemnors, this Court directed them to file an additional counter affidavit, which they have accordingly done. In the additional counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that the permits in Form –II were issued in compliance with the orders dated 18.3.2010 under communication to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 18.5.2010 and that the petitioner was permitted to harvest the Bamboo. It is further stated that the said communication was received by the petitioner on 21.5.2010 and that therefore the order of this Court was complied with. In support of this averment, the respondents have filed proceedings dated 20.5.2010 issued by respondent No.4. Having regard to the above facts, I am of the opinion that the respondents have complied with the order of this Court, though belatedly. Having regard to the explanation offered by the respondents for the delay in compliance with the order, I am of the opinion that no further action is warranted in the case and the contempt case is accordingly closed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 21st June, 2010 pnb