THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.C.No.240 to 245 and 294 & 295 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These contempt cases are filed alleging that the respondents have flouted the directions issued by this Court through various interim orders passed in W.P.Nos.17123, 14284, 16039, 17540, 20808, 16865, 19578 and 18537 of 2010. The petitioners contend that though this Court directed the respondents to set apart houses in favour of the petitioners, while undertaking allotment, the houses were not at all set apart in their favour. 2. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the necessity or occasion to set part houses in favour of the petitioners did not arise, on account of the fact that none of them were selected, much less were required to exercise option. 3. Heard Ms.S.Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. In the Visakhapatnam city, the Municipal Corporation, the A.P. Housing Corporation, and other connected agencies have taken up the project of allotting constructed houses in favour of the urban poor. The exercise was so big that, as many as 1,20,000 tenements were to be provided. The petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions stating that though they have been allotted houses and were required to exercise option, at the stage of final allotment, they were not being considered. 5. The respondents filed counter-affidavits in the writ petitions, stating that the allotment in favour of the petitioners was purely tentative and on subsequent verification, they were omitted from the list, on finding that they are not eligible. This Court passed the interim orders directing that the allotment of houses may go on, but the respondents shall set apart houses in favour of such of the petitioners, who have been issued letters of selection and were required to exercise option. The petitioners contend that the allotment of houses was undertaken, no houses were set apart in their favour. 6. On a perusal of the record, it becomes clear that having regard to the volume of the work involved, the Corporation has entrusted the matter of identification or verification, to certain private agencies and the said agencies, in turn, have prepared certain lists. The names of the petitioners figured in the list at some stage. However, they were excluded in the list of final allotment. 7. The basis for the claim of the petitioners is the individual letters said to have been served upon them by a private agency known as ‘Gayatri Rural Educational Society’. A bunch of them is filed before this Court. However, in none of the letters any competent authority has put his signature. Whatever may have been the nature of exercise undertaken by the authorities, this Court cannot act upon the unsigned letters said to have been issued to the petitioners. The question as to whether the petitioners are eligible to be allotted houses, and included in the final list of allottees, needs to be considered at the stage of hearing of the writ petitions. This Court does not find any contempt on the part of the respondents. 8. The contempt cases are accordingly closed. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 17.06.2011 GJ