The court determined there was no willful disobedience of its order regarding building permission, emphasizing the necessity of respecting judicial authority over administrative actions.

ORDER :

The present Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.9629 of 2013 dated 03.03.2021.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner has filed W.P.No.9629 of 2013 challenging the impugned order dated 02.02.2013 issued by the respondents refusing to sanction building permission to the petitioner in respect of plot No.29 in Sy.No.140, situated at Mahdavi Nagar, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as the said plot of the petitioner was falling under buffer zone of Yellamma Cheruvu, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Hyderabad.

3. Initially, this Court after hearing both sides has allowed the said Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 02.02.2013 by remanding to the competent authority to consider the same after duly taking into consideration of the letter dated 14.05.2009 addressed by the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and also taking into consideration of the petitioner’s case with similarly situated plot owners who have been granted building permission. The order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9629 of 2013 is extracted as under:

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned letter dated 02.02.2013, and the matter is remanded to the competent authority to re-consider the same afresh duly taking into consideration the letter dated 14.05.2009, addressed by the Tahsildar, Balangar Mandal, to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and also taking into consideration the fact that similarly situated plot owners have been granted building permission, and pass necessary orders. In case, the competent authority needs any clarification, he can seek the same from the Tahsildar concerned. This entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing. A copy of the order that may be passed by the competent authority shall be communicated to the petitioner.”

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the writ petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 28.04.2021 and the respondent authorities issued order in Lr.No.449/TPS1/ ACP/C24/GHMC/2021 dated 07.05.2021 rejecting to grant building permission over the respective plot bearing No.29 of the petitioner once again reiterating that the said plot was coming under buffer zone of Yellamma Cheruvu, Balanagar, Hyderabad. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the writ petitioner once again made representation on 17.05.2021, to which the authorities replied vide letter No.449/TPS1/ACP/C24/ GHMC/2021 dated 22.05.2021. Further, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that though this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider grant of building permission to the writ petitioner duly taking into consideration of the letter of Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, dated 14.05.2009, the respondent authorities so as to deprive the legitimate right of the writ petitioner have been adopting several vindictive methods and have intentionally rejected his claim on false and untenable grounds.

5. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that in other writ petitions filed by the similarly situated persons, the respondent authoritie