HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.C.No.617 of 2011 Date : 15-7-2011 Between V.Malla Reddy and another .. Petitioners And Sri Sameer Sharma, Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Ms.K.V. Rajasree Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri C.Damodar Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Sri V.Venkataramana The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 21-4-2011 in W.P.No.14261/2009. The petitioners have filed the above mentioned Writ Petition for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and its officials in disposing of their representations dated 20-4-2009, 27-4- 2009 and 12-5-2009 for taking action against respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein for allegedly raising illegal constructions in deviation of the sanctioned plan. This court disposed of the said Writ Petition by order dated 21-4-2011 with the direction to respondent No.1 herein to consider the petitioners’ representations and that if it is found that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have deviated from the sanctioned plan, he shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. This court further permitted respondent Nos.3 and 4 to construct the building strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Alleging that the said order is not complied with, the present Contempt Case is filed. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have raised constructions contrary to the sanctioned plan with several deviations and set-backs as detailed in para-3 of the counter-affidavit. It is further averred that on 18-6-2011, a notice under Section 452 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 was issued to respondent Nos.3 and 4, that thereafter it came to light that the said respondents have approached the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy by filing O.S.No.295/2011 and obtained ad interim injunction order dated 11-4-2011 and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have therefore expressed their willingness in taking action in the face of the subsistence of the order passed by the competent court of law. In the light of the above facts wherein respondent Nos.1 and 2 are constrained to refrain from taking action as a result of the order of injunction obtained by respondent Nos.3 and 4, it cannot be held that they are guilty of contempt of this court. The only remedy for the petitioner as of now appears to be to approach the civil court in which the suit filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 is pending and seek appropriate order for vacation of the interim order. Subject to the above observations, the Contempt Case is dismissed. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 15-7-2011 AM