THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.886 of 2009 Date:01.04.2011 Between: Bolla Sitharamanjaneya Prasada Rao and others ..... Petitioners AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A.Venkataramana Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 17.04.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.9682 of 2009 in W.P.No.1440 of 2009. I have heard Sri A.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries representing the respondents. The petitioners have filed W.P.No.1440 of 2009 seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise the fishponds dug by them without prior permission. In W.P.M.P.No.1809 of 2009 in the writ petition, this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representations dated 10.04.2008 and 28.04.2008 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 12.09.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 26.03.2008 within three weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioners. On 08.04.2009, the petitioners filed another W.P.M.P.No.9682 of 2009 in the writ petition for a direction to the respondents to regularise the fish tanks. This Court, by order dated 17.04.2009, granted the following order - “interim direction as prayed for”. Alleging wilful disobedience of this order, the present Contempt Case is filed. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Krishna at Machilipatnam, respondent No.2, it is inter alia explained that out of Acs.148.37 cents of the lands in respect of which different applications for regularization were filed, an extent of Acs.36.36 cents of land was regularised as it was found to be a private land, whereas the applications in respect of rest of the lands were rejected as it was found that an extent of Acs.10.00 of Government land was involved, by a detailed order passed on 06.03.2009. As noted above, the petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.9682 of 2009 more than one month after such rejection. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by the time W.P.M.P.No.9682 of 2009 was filed, his clients have not received the above order. However, he has not disputed the fact that by the time the contempt case has been filed, the said order was received. The learned counsel conceded that even till today, the order dated 06.03.2009, whereby respondent No.2 has rejected the applications for regularising the fish tanks, has remained unchallenged. In the light of these admitted facts, I do not find any merit in the allegations raised in the contempt case that the respondents have deliberately violated the order dated 17.04.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.9682 of 2009 of this Court. So long as the order of rejection stares at the face of the petitioners, they cannot legitimately say that the respondents have committed any illegality in not regularising the fish tanks. For the abovementioned reasons, the Contempt Case fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the contempt case, C.A.No.499 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st April, 2011 GHN