ORDER :

R Raghunandan Rao, J.

The petitioners being aggrieved by the establishment of unauthorised aqua-culture ponds by respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein, in Mummidivaram Village, had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.3526 of 2022 complaining of the inaction of the official respondents in removing such illegal aqua-culture ponds.

2. When the matter was taken up by this Court, the respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition had filed a counter affidavit stating that the unregistered aqua-culture ponds were removed with the help of a JCB machine. This statement was recorded by the Court and the Writ Petition was closed.

3. The petitioners have now again approached this Court, by way of the present Contempt Case, contending that the unofficial respondents had again started doing aqua cultural operations in the aqua ponds which had been repaired and that the official respondents are not taking action against the illegal activities and the same would be violation of the directions of this Court.

4. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents denying any wrong doing or any violation of the orders of the Court. The respondent No.1-District Collector had filed a counter affidavit stating that an inspection done on 23.05.2023 had found that some of the unofficial respondents were conducting aqua cultural operations and the same were stopped.

5. Sri G. Simhadri, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents would also submit the same.

6. A perusal of the order of the Court shows that the Court had merely recorded the statement of the official respondents that aqua culture operations had been stopped. There was no further direction of the Court while closing the Writ Petition.

7. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any direction which has been violated by the respondents. However, the spirit of the order was that such illegal actions should not be permitted. In the event of any such further activities being undertaken by any of the respondents, it would be open to the petitioners to avail of appropriate remedies under law.

8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.