IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR AND THE HON’BLR SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1762 of 2013 BETWEEN Pattana Pedala Sankshema Sangam.
…PETITIONER AND
Sri Mukesh Kumar Meena, District Collector, Hyderabad.
…RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SURESH KUMAR POTLURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order:
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar)
The petitioner herein filed public interest litigation in PIL.No.342 of 2012 alleging that the respondents therein are not processing the applications of the petitioner for allotment of houses under the Rajiv Gruhakalpa Scheme. After hearing both sides, the Division Bench, by order dated 08.10.2012, disposed of the said PIL by directing the respondent No.1 - District Collector to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in the matter and after it is found that the petitioner association members are entitled to the benefit of the scheme, respondent No.1 shall take necessary steps in the matter. Alleging disobedience of the aforesaid order, the present contempt case is filed.
2. Counter affidavit has been field by the District Collector wherein it is specifically stated in paras 3 and 4 as follows:
“3. In reply to Para 2 of the affidavit, it is submitted that while giving due gravity and respect to the orders of Hon’ble High Court, the respondnet reacted immediately and started the process by seeking details of the members of the petitioners Association vide this office letter R.C.No.2153/A1/RGK(HSG)/PIL dt.09.11.2012. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted the particular of the members. As the matter stood thus, the respondent has made exercise for preparing Mandal wise seniority of the RGK (1178) Applications and it is brought to the notice of the petitioner that no house for allotment are available in Hyderabad District and whenever new sanctions are made to Hyderabad district by Government, their candidature will be considered in accordance with their seniority/eligibility among the listed 35,206 total applicants in Hyderabad District vide Lr.No.A1/2153/2012 dt.16.08.2013.
It is further submitted Government was addressed vide reference D.O.Lr.No. 2153/APSHCL/Hyd/2005 Dt:16.04.2013 informing the housing situation and number of pending applications. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that this respondnet did not take/initiate any steps to allot Houses even after receipt of direction of Hon’ble High Court incorrect and misleading the judicature.
4. In reply to Paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit, it is submitted that as per the direction dt.08.10.2012 of this Hon’ble Court in PIL.No.342/2010, the processing of 1178 Applications 1178 received under RGK Scheme are started within six weeks and the question of violation of directions of this Hon’ble Court does not arise. The sanction of Houses in the Hyderabad district is under process and the same was informed to the Petitioner. The contention of the Petitioner that this Hon’ble Court made a direction to take necessary steps within six weeks but the respondent avoided the direction is incorrect. On the direction of the Hon’ble High Court the respondent initiated action on the applications received under RGK within six weeks. The petitioners contention is that the direction of the Hon’ble High Court is that House Site allotment may be made within Six weeks is misleading and twisting the orders of this Hon’ble Court. The main intention of the direction of Hon’ble High Court is to take/initiate action on 1178 applications received under RGK Scheme.”
3. From the above, it is evident that the respondent herein has conducted necessary enquiries and has shortlisted eligible applicants but on account of there being no houses available for allotment in Hyderabad District, the allotment, as such, could not be made to any of the member. However, it is stated that whenever new sanctions are made, their candidature will be considered in accordance with the seniority/eligibility among the listed 35,206 applicants.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we feel that there is no willful disobedience on the part of the respondent and in fact, they have complied with the directions of this Court. Hence, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed.
The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
S. RAVI KUMAR, J
July 11, 2014 DSK