S.Purendhar Babu v. Sri. P.Ramanujula Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CONTEMPT CASE NO: t477 OF 2019 Petition filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt oF Courts Act 1971 to punish the respondents herein for their willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dt. 23.09.2019 in W.P. No. 20470 of 2019 Between:

S.Purendhar Babu, S/o Late S.Laxminarayana Age 60 years Occ Business R/o H.No.1-4-24311, Teachers Colony Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District ,..PETITIONER AND Sri. P.Ramanujula Reddy, Commissioner, Town Municipality Suryapet, Nalgonda District RESPONDENT/CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT T PUSHPA RANI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR(SC FOR MC TETANGANA) The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CONTEMPT CASE No.l477 of20l9 ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-con]pliance of the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.20470 ol 201.9 by the respondent herein (respondent No.2 in the writ petition). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is a case where the writ petition came to be disposed ol at the admission stage on 23.09.2019 acceding to the prayer olthe petitioner's counsel that the complaint made by the petitioner be directed to be disposed ofby the respondent. It is to be noted that while disposing of the writ petition this Courl has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter, as, at that stage. the private respondent (3'd respondent in the writ petition) was not before this Court and therefore this Court had only directed the respondent-Commissioner to act on the complaint of the petitioner and communicate the action taken within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Now, a counter affidavit is filed in the contempt case specifically asserting that after receipt of the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by this Courr in W.P.No.

20470 of 2019, an<I as the 3'd respondent failed to remove the compound wall constructed over and above the sanctioned height, the field staff of the municipality had removed the compound wall on 04.09.2019, to the extent it violated the sanctioned plan, i.e., the existing height of compound wall was reduced from 11 feet to 5 feet from the Ground level as per the Rules, and the action taken was communicated to the petitioner on 04.09.2019 itself.

This Court did not express any definite opinion with regard to the nature ofaction to be taken by the respondent. The order passed in the writ petition was to act on the complaint on the petitioner and communicate the action taken within two weeks. The respondent-Commissioner has categorically asserted in the counter affidavit that action has been taken on 04.09.2019 as per the Rules by reducing the height of the compound wall and the sarne was communicated to the petitioner on 04.09.2019. A copy of the said communication is also placed on record along with the counter affidavit.

Having regard to the development i.e., action having been taken by the respondent by reducing the compound wall height in accordance with the Rules, mere dissatisfaction of the petitioner with regard to the nature of action does not give rise to contempt as alleged by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed. -M,VIJAYA BHAS DEPUTY REG R R /i TRUE COPY I I sd/ SECTI OFFICER Town Municipality Suryapet, Nalgonda To,

1. Sri. P.Ramanujula Reddy, Commissioner'

District

2. One CC to SMT. T PUSHPA RANI Advocate IOPUC]

3. ONE CC tO SRI'N PRAVEEN KUMAR(SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES OF -' irr-aNrcnrun) Advocate IoPUC]

4. Two CD Copies

a HIGH COURT CKRJ DATEDtI2lLOl2O2O T4 14:

s e

ORDER

CC.No.1477 of 2019 3 31oCI2m zo .L * a .I * .\..-.:

DISMISSING THE CONTEMT CASE WITHOUT COSTS O w22,