Laxmi Sri Residency Apartment Owners Association v. Janardhan Reddy,

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT CONTEMPT CASE No.1253 of 2016 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.94 of 2010 dated 26.08.2015. The 4th respondent in the writ appeal has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the order of the Division Bench.

The order, violation of which is alleged in this contempt case, required the respondents to consider and dispose of the regularisation application of the appellant within a period of two months from the date of its receipt; for the appellant to file an undertaking that, in the event his request for regularisation was rejected, he undertook to vacate the flat for which regularisation was sought, subject to his right to challenge such rejection order; and the appellant was given two months time to vacate the flat, if his request for regularisation was refused. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Commissioner, GHMC, it is stated that, by proceedings dated 16.09.

2016, the appellant's application for regularisation was rejected; they were requested to vacate the unauthorised portion of the subject building; a notice under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act was issued on 21.08.2017; the Station House Officer, KPHP Police Station, Kukatpally was requested, by letter dated 28.01.2017, to provide police protection for demolition of the unauthorised construction in the stilt floor of the said building; and the stilt floor of the subject building was subsequently demolished. Certain photographs of the unauthorised construction of the stilt floor and its demolition are also enclosed.

It is evident from the counter-affidavit that the order of the Division Bench, violation of which has resulted in the contempt case being filed, has since been complied with. We see no reason, therefore, to proceed against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ) __________________________ (S.V.BHATT, J) 11th August, 2017 JSU

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT CONTEMPT CASE No.1253 of 2016 Date: 11.08.2017 JSU