APHC010262862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4036/2025 Between: 1. K . SEETHARAMAIAH, S/O. VENKATARAJU, AGED 86 YEARS, OCC RETD., ASST., DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVARAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. R K SINGH, REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT FOR NH-16, TEACHER COLONY, GURUNANAK NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 2. D SURENDRA NATH, THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 punish the respondent under Sec.10.and 12 of Contempt of Court Act for deliberate and willful disobedience and disrespecting the orders of this Hon'ble court Dt. 05-08-2024 in W.P. NO. 16678 of 2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 2 pleased to condone the delay 161 of days in re-presenting the appeal and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. CHAUDHARY AND CHAUDHARY ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS LAW FIRM 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4036/2025 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 05.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16678 of 2024. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that order of this Court has been complied with. 4. On the last occasion learned counsel for the petitioner sought time for getting instructions. After instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to grant liberty to challenge the speaking order passed by the respondents in compliance of the order of this Court. 5. In view of the compliance admitted by both the parties, no further orders are necessary. 6. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the speaking order issued by the respondents by initiating appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 15.04.2026 TTPPSS 4 132 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4036/2025 15.04.2026 TTPPSS