APHC010564032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3258/2025 Between: 1. TATINENI MAHESWAR NAIDU,, S/O. T. SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS AND PROP OF M/S.MAHESWARA STONE CRUSHERS ,TATIPARTI VILLAGE, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT, NOW TIRUPATI DISTRICT. R/O. GURUKULAPALEM, POYYA VILLAGE AND POST, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI VIJAYA BHARATH REDDY, ZONAL MANAGER, TIRUPATI ZONE AT TIRUPATI A.P. INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION, CHITTOOR (TIRUPATI) DISTRICT. A.P. (R-5) 2. SRI M BHANU PRAKASH REDDY, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRI KALAHASTI DIVISION, AT SRI KALAHASTI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. (R-6) 3. SMT P BHARATHI, TAHSILDAR, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (R-7) ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to issue Notices and punish the Respondents under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful violation of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 18-08-2025 passed in W.P. No. 21582 of 2025 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R CHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SANTHI CHANDRA SC For APIIC 2. RAMAKRISHNA PATIVADA The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.3258 of 2025 ORDER: This Court, vide order dated 18.08.2025 in W.P.No.21582 of 2025, directed the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property, except by following due process of law. 2. Now, the contempt case has been filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner served a copy of this order to the respondents and obtained acknowledgments, but the respondents acted in a mechanical way. The 1st respondent, along with his sub-ordinates, forcibly entered into the subject land with proclains, in which quarry operations are going on, and hand handedly removed the petitioner’s persons, materials and started construction work of compound wall of behalf of APIIC, thereby the respondents have violated the orders of this Court willfully. Hence, prayed to punish the respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit and stated that the petitioner was granted quarry lease in Sy.No.129, (as per petitioner Sy.No.129/1), of Tatiparti Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District, now Tirupati District, for a period of fifteen years commencing from 18.04.2007 to 17.04.2022. The said lease period was expired in the year 2022, and the petitioner is not in possession of the property thereafter. It is further stated that later industrial park was developed in Sy.No.129 (Sy.No.129/1). The main contention of the 1st respondent is that quarry lease was granted in the year 2007 and the same was expired in the year 4 2022. Since 2022, the petitioner is not in possession of the property and hence, there is no violation of the orders of this Court. 4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also filed same counter-affidavit, wherein, at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 it is stated that as the petitioner is not in possession of the property, eviction by following due process of law does not arise. 5. Even assuming that respondents have violated the orders of this Court, still the contempt is between the contemnor and the Court, and the petitioner have no right to seek punishment of the contemnor under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. In Ahmad Ali Vs. Supdt., District Jail,1 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty of contempt and although, disobedience might have been established, absence of wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj and others2, held that the word <willful= introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. According to the Court, the term <willful= implies an act that is knowingly, intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate, carried out with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes acts that are casual, accidental, bonafide, unintentional or genuine inability. Wilful act is to 1 AIR 1987 SC 1491 2 2014 (16) SCC 204 5 be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. 8. Therefore, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 22.04.2026 KBN 6 65 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Contempt Case No.3258 of 2025 22.04.2026 KKBBNN