IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE (/*^A -a SSI 73 o > PRESENT .-S-. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT APPEAL No.lOof 2011 Contempt Appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, against the Judgment dated 09-09-2011 in C.C.No.1553 of 2010 passed by Honourable Single Judge. Between: Talasala Vidya Sagar, S/o Rama Rao, Panchayat Secretary, Lankivandibba Gram Panchayat, Repalle Mandal, Guntur District. ...Appellant (R-3) AND 1. K.Panduranga Rao, S/o. Lakshmana Swamy, Rajukaluva Gram Panchayat, Repalle Mandal, Guntur District. ...Respondent/Petitioner 2. The District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Tenali, Guntur District. ...Respondents/Respondents 1 & 2 (Respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein are not necessary parties to this appeal) nF 2Q11(APPt NO: 802 OF 20111 l-A. NO: 1 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances of the petition, the High Court may be order dated 09-09-2011 in contempt Petition under Section stated in the affidavit filed in support pleased to suspend the operation of the 2010 pending disposal of the contempt appeal. case No. 1553 of ; Sri T Koteswara Rao Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondents: OMR Law Firm The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 1 RRR, J & MRK, J C.A.No.10/2011 APHC010256302011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] v/b PKlE^DAV, THENiKJfcTFRNDPAY OF FfR^ARV TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 10/2011 Between: Talasala Vidya Sagar ...APPLICANT AND ...RESPONDENT(S) K Panduranga Rao and Others Counsel for the Applicant: 1.TKOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.0 MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondent was the Sarpanch of Rajukalva Gram Panchayat, Repalle Mandal, Guntur District, during the relevant point of time. The District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, by proceedings dated 23.06.2010, passed an respondent from drawing the monies of the Gram Panchayat, for a period of six months. This was challenged by the 1 respondent, by way of W.P.No. 15265 of 2010, before the erstwhile High Court St order prohibiting the 1 St / 2 RRR, J & MRK, J C.A.No.10/2011 of Andhra Pradesh. By order dated 02.07.2010, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had stayed the said proceedings and permitted the 1®‘ respondent to exercise the cheque drawing powers. Pursuant to the said order, the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, issued proceedings, dated 15.07.2010, recording that the orders of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh stood vacated, and declared that the 1®* respondent herein can operate the Gram Panchayat funds as usual. A copy of these proceedings was also marked to the appellant herein, who was working as the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. After this, the 1®* respondent herein submitted an application, dated 03.08.2010, stating that the appellant herein was refusing to handover the cheque book. The District Panchayat Officer, after receiving this application, issued proceedings, dated 07.08.2010, directing the appellant herein to make available the cheque book respondent. The District Panchayat Officer issued another proceeding, dated 18.08.2010, directing the appellant herein to make the cheque book available to the Sarpanch. The 1®‘ respondent, then approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of C.C.No.1553 of 2010 seeking leave of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh to prosecute the appellant herein for committing contempt of the orders of the Court. The said leave was granted on 26.10.2010. 2. to the 1 3. The appellant, who was arrayed as the 3'''' respondent in the Contempt Case, had filed two counter affidavits in the matter. In the first 4. 3 RRR, J & MRK, J C.A.No.10/2011 counter affidavit, the appellant simply stated that he had made the cheque book available to the respondent, whenever he went to withdraw money and that he had never taken any objection for withdrawal of money by the respondent. The appellant also stated that the 1®‘ respondent was withdrawing money after signing the cheque and obtaining the counter signature of the appellant. In reply to this counter affidavit, the respondent filed a reply affidavit on 24.01.2011 stating that the cheque book was handed over by the appellant only on 08.11.2010 and no explanation was forthcoming from the appellant, as to why the cheque book had not been handed over from respondent also pointed out that on 13.08.2010, the appellant had withdrawn funds of the Gram Panchayat after presenting a cheque containing his signature only and without the signature of the 1®* 5. 15.07.2010. The 1 respondent. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh called upon the appellant to file a fresh counter affidavit setting out the steps taken by him pursuant to the directions of the Court. The appellant then filed a counter affidavit, on 01.07.2011, where the appellant took the stand that the cheque book could not be handed over to the 1"* respondent,as no requisition letter was given by the 1®* respondent. Apart from this, the appellant also took the stand that he was dragged into the contempt case only because he was not acceding to the whims and fancies of the 1®‘ respondent. The appellant further 6. J 3- 4 RRR, J & MRK, J C.A.No.10/2011 contended that the contempt case was not maintainable against him as he was not a party to the original writ petition. The learned Single Judge, before whom the contempt case had come up, following Sabirabi vs. B. Obula Reddy\ and A.M. Madhava Rao vs. T. Chatterjee^ had held that a contempt case was maintainable against a third party and that the contempt case filed against the appellant was maintainable. 7. even 8. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, and considering the pleadings in the case, had held that the version of facts put forth by the appellant did not merit acceptance. The learned Single Judge took the view that the proceedings of the District Panchayat Officer, dated 07.08.2010 and 18.08.2010, were sufficient to hold that the appellant had not handed over the cheque book to the 1®‘ respondent, even after becoming aware of the orders of this Court. The learned Single Judge had further held that the contention of the appellant that cheque book was not handed because no requisition had been handed over, was also not acceptable. The learned Single Judge took the view that the silence of the appellant in relation to the proceedings of the District Panchayat Officer, dated 07.08.2010 and 18.08.2010 would go to show that the 1®' respondent had been making requests for the cheque book to be given to him and that the appellant had not taken any steps to handover the cheque book. On the basis of these findings, I the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was over ( \ X '2001(1)ALD5(DB) ;^2008(6)ALD 173 '' \ 5 RRR, J & MRK, J C.A.No.10/2011 guilty of deliberate disobedience of the directions of the Court and convicted the appellant under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced the appellant to undergo detention in civil prison for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 09.09.2011, the appellant has filed the present contempt appeal. 10. There was no appearance on behalf of the appellant on 09.12.2024, 23.12.2024, 06.01.2025 and on 21.01.2025 when the contempt appeal was reserved for orders. It may be noted that there was no appearance for the respondents also. In such circumstances, this court is disposing of this appeal on the basis of the material before this court. 11. The grounds of appeal filed on behalf of the appellant raise three primary grounds. Firstly, the contempt case was not maintainable against the appellant as he was not a party to the writ petition. Secondly, the learned Single Judge did not take into account the fact that the instructions of the Revenue Divisional Officer / District Panchayat Officer directing the appellant to make the cheque book available to the 1"* respondent was followed and thirdly, the learned Single Judge has misdirected himself on the contention of the appellant that there was no requisition by the 1®* respondent for handing the cheque book. The appellant also took the subsidiary ground that no drawn for the purpose of the Gram Panchayat till 08.11.2011 and j that the signed receipt given by the 1®' respondent on 08.11.201^ Emitting receipt of cheque book was also ignored. over money was /• 6 RRR, J & MRK, J C.A.No.10/2011 The aforesaid grounds of the appellant, had already been raised before the learned Single Judge in the contempt case and the same had already been rejected. The learned Single Judge had rejected these objections / grounds of appeal, after due consideration of all the facts and 12. after recording the reasons, which accord with our opinion as to the acts of the appellant. It may also be noted that the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the contention of the appellant, that no money was withdrawn from the Gram Pancghayat account, had pointed out to the submission of the 1 respondent that the appellant had drawn money on the basis of sole signature on the cheque, in the month of August itself, without obtaining the signature of the 1®* respondent. St 13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge. The appellant is guilty of violation of the orders of the Court, amounting to contempt of court. 14. Accordingly the contempt appeal is dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To The Registrar(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. 2 Sri K Panduranga Rao, S/o. Lakshmana Swamy, Rajukaluva Gram Panchayat, Repalle Mandal, Guntur District. 1. ■\ 3. The Section Officer, O.S. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 4. One CC to Sri T Koteswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri O Manoher Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:19/02/2025 JUDGMENT CA.No.10 of 2011 OF AND/y, O' 12 MAR 2C21 m G» . Current Section . DISMISSING THE CONTEMPT APPEAL