Girijana Samkshema Seva Sangam, v. Sri.Babu.A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEEN PRESENT Between:

Girijana Samkshema Seva Sangam, [Regd.,No. 577 of 2004] Room No. 52, NTR Complex, Governorpet, Vijayawada, Krishna district, Represented by its President:P.Laxmana Rao ... Petitioner V/s.

Sri Babu, A.

District Collector, Krishna district at Machilipatnam & Anr. ... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V.R. Avula Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue [AP] GP for Social Welfare [AP] The Court made the following: [order follows] O R D E R :

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleaders for

respondents.

2 . The present contempt case is filed complaining disobedience of order in WP.No. 16184 of 2010 dated 19/2/2014. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

"The petitioner Sangam shall file a representation to the respondents along with a copy of the order in the present writ petition. The third and fourth respondents will examine the claims of members and on being satisfied that they have valid patta and are entitled for possession, appropriate orders be passed within a period of three [03] months from the date of receipt of such representation. No costs."

3. Now the complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of positive and definite direction, the Collector did not consider and dispose of the representation alleged to have been filed by the petitioner. This Court on 01/7/2015 issued notice to respondents. The first and second respondents have filed independent counter-affidavits. The first respondent also filed annexures along with the counter-affidavit. From the annexrures, it is evident that the first respondent through Proceedings File No. REVESECOLAS(CC)/5/2015-JA(ES)-KCO, dated 04/8/2015 has considered and disposed of the representation alleged to have been filed by the petitioner. No doubt the proceedings reject the assertion of the petitioner. In the contempt case, this Court cannot go into the legality or otherwise of the proceedings referred to above.

4. The contempt case is closed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to assail the proceedings referred to above, if so advised, in a properly instituted writ or appeal. No costs.

5. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this contempt case shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE S.V. BHATT.

27/11/2015 I s L

Date: 27/11/2015 Circulation No.148 Court Master: I s L