The petitioner complains of disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment. It is contended that, though Annexure A2 has been passed by the respondent, the same is not in conformity with the observations made in the judgment.
2. An affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. It is contended that, the order has been passed in compliance with the directions of this Court after taking into account and considering all the relevant parameters. The minutes of the meeting of the Art and Heritage Commission is produced as Annexure R1(a). The contention therefore is that, the direction of this Court has already been complied with.
3. Heard. The operative portion of the judgment Annexure A1 reads as follows :
“In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 5 to consider the revised plan Exhibit P10, in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in Exhibit P4 and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
It is not in dispute that Annexure A2 proceedings have Cont.Case(C) No.460 of 2014 2 been issued in compliance with the direction of this Court. It is true that the petitioner has a number of contentions regarding the correctness of the decision taken as well as regarding the omission to consider the observations made by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. Those are all contentions questioning the vires of Annexure A2. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A2, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Since the respondent has complied with the direction of this Court, I do not find any grounds to proceed with this contempt case further.
For the above reasons, this contempt case is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV