THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CONTEMPT CASE No.1902 of 2010 Date: 09.09.2011 Between : Swarna Bharti Fruits and Vegetables Mutually Aided Cooperative Society, Tadigapada, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, rep. by its President Gummadi Brahmaji and others. … Petitioners and Ms. K. Jansi Rani, Assistant Director of Marketing, Vijayawada, Krishna District and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CONTEMPT CASE No.1902 of 2010 ORDER : The petitioners are vegetable vendors having their stalls in Rythu Bazar situated in Vijayawada, Krishna District. They have challenged the order issued by the 1st respondent-Assistant Director of Marketing, Vijayawada, Krishna District in proceedings No.A1/RBZs/Krishna District 2010, dated 28.6.2010 whereunder they were asked to stop conducting their business. This Court by order dated 20.9.2010 in W.P.M.P.No.20838 of 2010 in W.P.No.16533 of 2010 suspended the said order. This contempt case is filed alleging that despite the said order of this Court, the respondents are not allowing them to conduct the business. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent stating that a notice dated 1.10.2010 was issued by the then Assistant Director of Marketing to all the stall holders, including the petitioners herein, to comply with some requirements in terms of the conditions of allotment of the stalls. The petitioners have voluntarily closed the stalls in order to avoid compliance of the requirements of the said notice. It is also stated that on a representation dated 14.12.2010 submitted by the petitioners alleging that they were being harassed, the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Krishna District, caused an enquiry through the Special Officer and Tahsildar, Kankipadu Mandal. The said officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report on 24.12.2010 stating that the petitioners have closed their stalls without any intimation to the Estate Officer and that the petitioners have not been restrained from conducting the sale transactions. It is further stated that the petitioners have again re-opened their stalls and continuing the sale transactions from 1.1.2011 onwards. 3. The petitioners have not filed any rejoinder disputing the said facts. 4. In view of the same, since the petitioners are continuing the sale transactions, I am of the view that the respondents have not violated the orders of this Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to proceed with the contempt case. 5. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 09.09.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CONTEMPT CASE No.1902 of 2010 09.09.2011 (Msr)