HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1649 of 2014 DATED 5TH NOVEMBER,2014.
BETWEEN Biharila yadav ….Petitioner And K.Sambaiah, the Assistant City Planner, Circle-8, GHMC, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad and anr …Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No. 1649 OF 2014
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging non implementation of order of this Court dated 25.06.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 26104 of 2010.
This Court disposed of the aforesaid Writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation clearly indicating the nature of encroachment on the footpath in front to its business property and on receipt of the said representation, the respondents shall take necessary action for removal of the encroachments on the footpath and road margin. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation on 11.08.2014 stating that pursuant to the order of this Court, a representation was submitted to the Assistant City Planner on 07.07.2014 and encroachments made by Riyaz Ahmed and others were removed on 20.06.2014, but again the said Riyaz Ahmed and others started doing business by encroaching the footpath.
The Assistant City Planner filed a counter affidavit stating that that one Riyaz Ahmed and his associates occupied footpath to an extent of 5 feet x 13 feet adjacent to his business property by encroaching road margin and running a readymade garment shop and traveling and ladies handbags shop and that the said encroachments were removed on 28.06.2014 itself even before submission of representation on 7.7.2014 by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted another representation on 11.08.2014 stating that after removal of the encroachments, they have again re-erected temporary sheds by encroaching footpath and road margin. The respondent-Corporation conducted special programme on 10.10.2014 for removal of re-erected structures on the footpath as mentioned in the said representation and the same were removed with the assistance of the police.
The Assistant Commissioner of Police also filed a counter affidavit stating that on 10.10.2014 the GHMC authorities along with officials of police removed the encroachments on road margins and footpaths at Koti area including the encroachments of Mr.Riyaz Ahmed and others. Apart from that, two petty cases under Section 39(b) of the City Police Act were registered against said Riyaz Ahmed and another. He further stated that encroachments are being removed from time to time by fixing various special drives including in Sultan Bazar area and as such it cannot be said that he (second respondent) violated the orders of this court.
In view of the above, it is clear that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the respondents have removed the encroachments on the footpaths and road margins by conducting special drives. When the first respondent removed the encroachments on 28.06.2014, the same were re-erected and the police registered two petty cases against the encroachers. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the orders of this court. The Contempt Case is therefore liable to be closed.
The Contempt Case is closed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Contempt Case shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 5TH November,2014. Msnrx