( 1 ) THE Contempt Case and the Writ Petition are interconnected and as such they are being disposed of together. Contempt Case No. 807 of 2000

( 2 ) THIS contempt case has been filed complaining wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 20-8-1998 passed in Writ petition No. 23613 of 1998.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, though the said order had become final the respondents had demolished the structures on the premises bearing Door No. 2-7-645 to 649, 650/1 and 650/2 on the Rashtrapathi road, Nizamabad for the purpose of widening of the road on 31-5-2000, in spite of the fact that the orders of this Court were brought to the notice of the respondents by way of a Telegram, which was received by them on 30-5-2000 itself.

( 4 ) THE premises in question was constructed in 1930s leaving sufficient set off for future widening of the road. The width of the Rashtrapathi Road was 60 The Director of Town Planning, Government of Andhra pradesh had prepared a plan for organized development of Nizamabad town under the andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act in r. P. No. 20/75 vide file No. 3798/75/a6/nzb, dated 6-3-1975, which was published in g. O. Rt. No. 341, MA, dated 6-3-1975. As per the Road Development Plan, the rashtrapathi Road will be widened to a width of 80 and the plan demarcates the contours of the road and buildings that are likely to be affected, if the road is widened to 80 . From the plain it is clear that the petitioners building will not be affected. They had expressed their willingness and no objection for widening of the road and requested the authorities to undertake the exercise in accordance with the approved plan. However, the 2nd petitioner was called to the Collector s Office for giving consent for demolition of a portion of the building, which he refused to do so, as the approved plan did not affect his building at all and as the authorities were-high handedly proceeding with the demolition work, they filed Writ petition No. 23g18 of 1998 and obtained the orders. However, after the disposal of the writ Petition, no further action was taken till the last week of May, 2000. In Writ Petition no. 22856 of 1998 filed by some other persons challenging the proposed demolitions on R. P. Road, Nizamabad, the 1st respondent herein filed a counter- affidavit stating that Road Development Plan no. 20/1975 is being scrupulously followed and only such buildings or encroachments on Government lands, which are required to be removed to widen the road as per the plan, are sought to be removed and in fact most of the shop owners and encroachers have removed the obstructions voluntarily, either fully or partly. In the last week of May, 2000, petitioner No. 1 was called to the Office of the 2nd respondent and was informed by the 2nd respondent himself that if the building is not demolished voluntarily, he would have no alternative, but to use force and demolish the building. Petitioner No. 1 informed the 2nd respondent that their building need not be demolished as it is not affected by the road development plan and requested the 2nd respondent to personally inspect the area to find out whether their building is required to be demolished, if the road is to be widened in accordance with the plan. Petitioner No. 1 also informed the 2nd respondent that even according to the road alignment, the building does not cause any obstruction and need not be demolished. Then the 2nd respondent got angry and said that the building will have to be demolished, as it was coming in the road widening programme. They informed the 2nd respondent that the demolition could take place only in accordance with road development plan, after giving a notice and acquisition of land through due process of law and they have show a copy of the order in Writ Petition No. 23613 of 1998 to which the 2nd respondent reacted more violently and stated that such orders cannot stop him from proceeding with road development work. Further, on consu