APHC010222952014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1287/2014 Between: M.peda Narasimham Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Sri Kanthelal Dande and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI The Court made the following: ORDER The petitioners filed the above contempt case complaining of non- implementation of the order dated 26.12.2013 in W.P.No.8880 of 2010. 2. The aforementioned writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings in RC No.67/2009-W8 dated 04.06.2009 issued by respondent No.1, District Collector and District Programme Coordinator, Guntur District, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.12.2013, in terms of the directions in the common order dated 07.07.2010 in W.P.No.14121 of 2009 and batch. One of the directions is that in case recovery is contemplated, the authorities were directed to conduct a fresh enquiry and complete the same within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Separate recovery proceedings, if any, issued in pursuance of the impugned proceedings were stayed. Complaining non-compliance of the order dated 26.12.2013, the above contempt case is filed. 4. Heard Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T. Sriram, learned counsel representing Sri V. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Initially, a memo dated 22.04.2021 filed by annexing copies of subsequent proceedings i.e. issuance of notice, conducting enquiry and passing of orders on 10.09.2014. Thereafter, a counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.1, by annexing the copies of the material filed along with memo dated 22.04.2021. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order dated 10.09.2014 was not even communicated to the petitioners till they filed along with the counter affidavit and memo. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the said submission. 8. As seen from the proceedings issued vide Rc.No.67/2009-W8 dated 10.09.2014, notices were issued to the petitioners, on 08.08.2014, in pursuance of order in W.P.No.8880 of 2010. The said notices were received by the petitioners on 13.08.2014, for which an explanation was submitted. Thereafter orders were passed and dispatched on 11.09.2014. 9. By way of memo and the counter affidavit, the proceedings were filed before the Court. Since appropriate proceedings were issued, in pursuance of order in W.P.No.8880 of 2010, this Court is of the opinion that orders dated 26.12.2013 have been complied with. 10. Therefore, without going into the disputed question of fact regarding the communication of the aforementioned proceedings to the petitioners, this contempt case is closed giving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the proceedings issued vide Rc.No.67/2009-W8 dated 10.09.2014, if they are aggrieved. SUBBA REDDY SATTI,J Date : 07.03.2025 ikn THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1287/2014 Date: 07.03.2025 IKN