APHC010165042024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Contempt Case No:2015 of 2024 Between: Sri Madhava Palani, Works Contractor, S/o. Madhava Pillai, Aged about 55 years, D.No.6-160/1A, Akkarampalle, Tirupati-517 507, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND Sri M T Krishna Babu, Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Welfare Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh and Others ...CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M V J K Kumar Counsel for the Contemnors: 1. Mr. Venakata Reddy Chittem 2. Mr. S Appadhara Reddy The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learned counsel representing the 5th respondent. 2. The contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in W.P No.27695 of 2023. An amount of Rs.89,67,624/- was claimed towards the works executed by the petitioner and the same is payable by the respondents therein. After looking into the written instructions of the 5th respondent therein, the writ petition was disposed of, at the stage of admission, with a direction to the respondents to pay the balance amount claimed by the petitioner, after effecting the statutory deductions as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while stating that, pursuant to said order an amount of Rs.74,03,600/- was paid to the petitioner, contends that the order has been partially complied with and on the premise that the respondent-Corporation being a Governmental agency is entitled to effect the statutory deductions, as stated in the letter dated 27.06.2024 and that the same is not tenable. He also submits that non-payment of balance amount of Rs.15,64,024/- amounts to willful disobedience of the orders dated 07.11.2023 and therefore the respondents are liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. Considered the submissions made. As seen from the order dated 07.11.2023, it is discernible that the amount which is due and payable to the petitioner was to be paid after effecting the statutory deductions. As to whether the directions issued by the respondent-Corporation are valid or not is a matter which has to be decided, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is in a separate proceeding not in the present contempt case. No grounds are made out to exercise the contempt powers. 5. Therefore, the contempt case is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies in accordance with law, in so far as the above said balance amount is concerned. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 20.02.2025 Ksj