Contempt Case No. 1661 of 2009 · High Court

This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, dated 16.08.2009, passed in W.P.No.16881 of

The petitioner filed the above-said writ petition aggrieved by the action of the respondent, namely, the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Court Complex, Secunderabad, in not taking action against the illegal/unauthorized constructions being carried on by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition, in the subject premises, in spite of representations made by him on 05.02.2008 and 15.02.2008. This Court having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent disposed of the said writ petition on 16.08.2009 with the following direction:

The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representations purported to have been made by the petitioner on 05.02.2008 and 15.02.2008, in accordance with law expeditiously, after issuing notice to respondents 2 and 3. No costs.

Alleging violation of the said orders, dated 16.08.2009, the present contempt case is filed.

The Executive Officer of respondent-Secunderabad Cantonment Board filed counter in the matter brining on record the action taken by him pursuant to the orders of this Court. But, however, this Court having not satisfied with the same admitted the contempt case and accordingly, on 30.03.2010 the Executive Officer of the respondent appeared in-person and filed Additional Counter Affidavit indicating that notices were issued to Smt.M.Laxmamma and Sri M.Narasimha Yadav, respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition, for making unauthorized constructions in the subject premises, but, it is not stated as to whether such notices were served on them and what steps were taken thereafter. When the same was pointed out, the time. learned Standing Counsel respondent sought Subsequently, the matter underwent three adjournments. Today, when the matter is taken up the learned Standing Counsel produced documents indicating that notice under sub-section (1) of Section 248 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 was issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition, duly giving the particulars of the unauthorized constructions undertaken by them in the subject premises and directing them to remove the same within a period of thirty days.

He has also submitted that after expiry of the statutory period, if the unauthorized constructions are not removed, the respondent would take appropriate action in accordance with law. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, no further orders are necessary in the contempt case. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. If the petitioner is still having any grievance, he is always at liberty to avail the appropriate remedies available to him under law. No costs. Date:04.06.2010 VGB ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.