HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.60 of 2011 in W.P.M.P. No.20442 of 2009 in WRIT PETITION No.15566 of 2009 Date: July 28, 2011 Between: Darupalli Balaiah … Petitioner And 1. Ch. Venkateshwar Reddy, The Vice Chairman, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad & 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.60 of 2011 in W.P.M.P. No.20442 of 2009 in WRIT PETITION No.15566 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner in W.P. No.15566 of 2009 filed this contempt case alleging disobedience to the interim order dated 12.8.2009 passed by this court in W.P.M.P. No.20442 of 2009 in W.P. No.15566 of 2009. By the said order, this Court directed the respondents to deliver to the petitioner the possession of the quarter constructed in Plot No.240 in Survey No.136 of Gachibowli Housing Colony, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Pertinent to note, the respondents in the said W.P.M.P. were the A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., and its officers, who are now arrayed as respondents in this contempt case. 3. There is no representation for the petitioner or his counsel. 4. Sri D.V. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, stated on the basis of their counter-affidavits that the A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., and its officers are only concerned with the implementation of the building programme and that they do not have any power to allot pattas or to handover physical possession of the houses constructed through such programmes. The Project Director of the A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., the first respondent, specifically stated in his counter that the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar concerned is the competent authority to sanction the house patta and handover the physical possession of the flat. 5. Significantly, the Revenue Authorities are not parties to the writ petition and this contempt case. In so far as the A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., and its officers are concerned, being the mere executing agency of the building programme, unless it is shown that they also have a role to play in the physical delivery of the flats, no wilful disobedience can be attributed to them. No cause is made out for exercise of contempt jurisdiction. 6. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: July 28, 2011. BSB