Sukhdev Singh, v. B.Ravinder Kumar,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.1886 OF 2015 Date: 07.09.2016 Between :

Sukhdev Singh, S/o Ajit Singh, Aged about 72 years, Occu: Retired RBI Employee, R/o H.No.7-4-40/1-B, Ferozguda, Balanagar, Kukatpally, R.R. District and another.

.... Petitioners And B.Ravinder Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Kukatpally, Circle - XIV-B, Office at Moosapet, Hyderabad.

.... Respondent This Court made the following :

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.1886 of 2015 ORDER:

On the last occasion, when the matter was listed, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Today also, there is no representation.

2.

This Court disposed of the Writ Petition by order dated 06.08.2015 directing the third respondent in the writ petition to consider the complaints of the petitioners and after affording reasonable opportunity to the respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition pass appropriate orders as warranted under law and communicate the decision to the petitioners. 3.

Learned standing counsel Sri Sampath Kumar produced proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, Circle 14B, Kukatpally, dated 03.08.2016, where under the complaints of the petitioners were attended to and they were informed about the alleged deviations and further action proposed to be taken by the Municipal Corporation.

4.

The communication dated 03.08.2016 given is in compliance of the directions issued by this Court and there is no need to keep the contempt pending. However, it is necessary to observe that the orders of this Court was passed on 06.08.2015 and even according to the proceedings dated 03.08.2016, last hearing was held on 08.12.2015. The communication was generated on 03.08.2016 i.e., after 8 months of the last hearing. No reasons are forthcoming for such long delay. It is appropriate to note that this Court granted four weeks time to pass orders on the complaints

submitted by the petitioners. No application was filed praying to grant extension of time fixed by the Court, even assuming that there was administrative difficulty in complying with the directions. This attitude of the Officers concerned is not appreciated. The Court expresses its displeasure in the manner in which case is handled by the respondent. It is hoped and expected that they shall be careful in future to comply with the orders of this Court within the time fixed by the Court. 5.

Contempt Case is accordingly closed.

No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the contempt case shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 07.09.2016 kkm

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.1886 OF 2015 Date: 07.09.2016 kkm