IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
C.C. No.1963 of 2012
Between:
Adari Surya Kumari and others And Sri B.Shyam Babu and others.
… Petitioners … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
C.C. No.1963 of 2012
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed seeking to issue summons to the respondents for wilfully disobeying the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.12883 of 2012 on 27.04.2012.
W.P. No.12883 of 2012 was filed by as many as 60 petitioners in number questioning inaction of the respondents in allotting the houses to the petitioners, who belong to poor, down trodden, BCs, SCs, STs and Girijan Harijana Veedhi of Viskhapatnam under the JNNURM Scheme or in K2 Layout of Kommadi village of Visakhapatnam.
This Court on 27.04.2012 while disposing of the writ petition directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law for allotment of houses to the petitioners in JNNURM housing scheme or in K2 layout, Kommadi village.
Complaining that the said order has not been complied with by the respondents, present contempt case has been filed.
The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the order passed by this Court has been complied with and to that effect counter affidavit has also been filed, inter alia, stating that an endorsement dated 05.11.2012 was issued to the petitioners informing their ineligibility for allotment of houses under JNNURAM.
A copy of endorsement dated 05.11.2012 is also filed with the counter affidavit, which reads as under:
“GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Rc.No.147/2010 H3 O/o.Project Director Dated: 05-11-2012 UCD, GVMC ENDORSEMENT Sub:- Jnnurm Housing – UCD – GVMC – Visakhapatnam – Request for allotment of houses under JNNURM as per the High Court orders – Fact Informed – Regarding.
Ref:- Smt. Adari Surya Kumari W/o. Eswara Ramu and 59 others have filed W.P. No.12883/2012 in Honble High Court, A.P. Hyderabad.
o0o With reference to the above cited. It is to inform that while disposing the case in W.P. No.12883/2012 the Honble High Court has directed the 2nd respondent in its order dated 27. April, 2012 to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law for allotment of houses to the petitioners in Jnnurm housing scheme or in K2 layout Kommadi village.
In this connection it is to inform that the Jnnurm Housing programme gives priority to (1) Hut category (2) Insitu (constructed in the slum areas) and (3) Relocation only (ie., Road margin encroachers, encroachers of Railway, Port and private lands, Gedda encroachers, Five victims, disabled persons 3% reservation, HIV patitients, displaced families of BRTS, Gangavaram Port, and Vambly left over). So far 14,121 houses have been allotted to the beneficiaries falling under the above three categories and only 1199 houses are left for allotment which are duly earmarked for removal category since project works under Jnnuram are in progress and many families are going to be displaced during the implementation of the project work, hence the houses are earmarked for them. The cases of the petitioners shall be considered as per eligibility in case of any vacancies arises or in future housing scheme.
Hence, the case has been considered and rejected in view of the facts mentioned above. Accordingly the petitioner is informed.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
Project Director UCD, GVMC To Smt.Adari Suryakumari W/o. Eswara Ramu, Door No.31-18-2, Erukula Veedhi, Harijana Veedhi, Visakhapatnam and 59 others.
Copy to the Zonal Commissioner, Zone-III is hereby requested to serve the copy on Sri Adari Suryakumari and send the served copy to this office urgently so as to enable me to produce the same to the Hon’ble High Court, AP Hyderabad. Please treat this as most urgent.”
In view of the above, I do not see any wilful disobedience of the order dated 27.04.2012 passed in W.P. No.12883 of 2012 by this Court on the part of the respondents and therefore, the contempt case is liable to be closed.
In the result, contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 22.08.2014 LSK