APHC010299862024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2983/2024 Between: K Sudhakar Reddy ...PETITIONER AND B Gopal Naik and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. NAGARAJU PULLAGURA 2. CH SRINIVAS 3. 4. VUTUPALLI RAJANNA The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the willful disobedience of the orders dated 18.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.2625 of 2019. 2. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nagaraju Pullagura and Sri Ch.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court after duly taking into consideration the instructions of respondent Nos.1 to 3 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the subject property except under due process of law. Knowing pretty well about the orders in the writ petition, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are sending unofficial respondents to the subject property to dispossess the petitioner, which is clear disobedience of the orders of this Court, as such, they are liable for punishment, accordingly, prayed to punish the contemnors. 4. Perused the record. 5. This Court taking into consideration the written instructions of the respondents, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property except under due process of law. However, if at all third parties are interfering with the petitioner’s possession, he has to approach the competent Civil Court. There is no material placed on record to show that the officials are sending the private parties to dispossess the petitioner, as such, this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no contempt in the present case and contempt case is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 29th January, 2025 RKS