THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1423 of 2009 Date:26.07.2010 Between: General Meter and Sanitary Works Goshamahal, Malakunta, Hyderabad. ………..Petitioner. And Hyderabad Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Hyderabad and others. ………Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1423 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 20.12.2006 passed in WPMP No.33640 of 2006 in W.P.No.26193 of 2006. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 30.10.2009, and, subsequently, it came to be admitted on 9.6.2010. The respondents 1 to 3 appeared before the Court on 7.7.2010 and their presence came to be dispensed with on the even date until further orders. The respondents filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that no permission is granted to the petitioner to sell the water meters in the new building. Para No.7 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus:- “In reply to Para No.5 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the Respondent Board has allotted the space to the Petitioner to sell the water meters for a period of one month only i.e., up to 31.7.2004, thereafter the Writ Petitioner herein was allowed to sell the water meters, without any written permission in the premises at Ameerpet, till the end of September, 2009 and as the entire Head Office of the Board was shifted to Khairatabad in the month of October, 2009 no permission is granted in the new building as the Board has taken a decision not to allow any stalls in the new building. As stated above there is no interim order in favour of the Petitioner to provide a space to sell the water meters. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot complain any violation.” Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite the interim order passed by this Court in WPMP No.33640 of 2006, the respondents are not permitting the petitioner to sell the water meters in the premises. A further submission has been made by the petitioner that the petitioner has been selling the water meters for the last so many years and paying the necessary rental to the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no written permission has been given to any one to sell the water meters, after the entire Head Office of the Board has been shifted to Khairatabad in the month of October, 2009. Let me first refer the relief sought for by the petitioner in WPMP No.33640 of 2006, which reads as hereunder:- “Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in W.P. the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the 2nd respondent’s proceedings No.D.G.M (E)/Genl/SWC/05-06/1576 dated 8-12-2006 and permit the petitioner to sell the water meters by keeping the table in the premises of the 2nd respondent i.e., Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Khairtabad, Hyderabad pending disposal of the W.P.No.26193 of 2006 on the file of the High Court.” An order of interim suspension came to be granted on 20.12.2006 subsequently, the interim order granted earlier was extended until further orders on 25.1.2007. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents are not permitting to sell the water meters by keeping the table in the premises of the General Manager (Engineering), General Division, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. What is granted on 20.12.2006 is interim suspension of the proceedings dated 8.12.2006. There is no specific direction permitted the petitioner to sell the water meters by keeping the table in the premises of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. The respondents have specifically stated in Para No.7 of the counter affidavit that after the premises has been shifted in the month of October 2009, no permission has been granted in the new building to sell the water meters in the premises. The contention of the petitioner that the respondents violated the order dated 20.12.2006 by not permitting him to sell the water meters in the premises has no substance, since there is no specific orders in faouvr of the petitioner directing the respondents to permit him to sell the water meters by keeping the table in the premises of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:26.7.2010 mrb