APHC010002412024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 44/2024 Between: 1. GORLA KUMARA SWAMY,, S/O. SURIBABU, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS AND CULTIVATION, R/O SABBAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT. 1. SRI PATANSETTY RAVI SUBASH, S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT AT ANAKAPALLE, ERSTWHILE VISAKHPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. SMT R SIRISHA RANI, W/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ANAKAPALLE, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. SRI Y JAYANTH PREM KUMAR, 3. , S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SABBAVARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SABBAVARAM VILLAGE, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. SRI BELLAPU SATYANARAYANA, 4., S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. SRI KARRI SRINIVASA RAO, 5. S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 44/2024 GORLA KUMARA SWAMY,, S/O. SURIBABU, AGED 44 YEARS, BUSINESS AND CULTIVATION, R/O SABBAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND SRI PATANSETTY RAVI SUBASH, S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT AT ANAKAPALLE, ERSTWHILE VISAKHPATNAM SMT R SIRISHA RANI, W/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ANAKAPALLE, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHPATNAM DISTRICT. EM KUMAR, 3. , S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SABBAVARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SABBAVARAM VILLAGE, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHPATNAM DISTRICT. SRI BELLAPU SATYANARAYANA, 4., S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING ILDAR, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHPATNAM DISTRICT. SRI KARRI SRINIVASA RAO, 5. S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI GORLA KUMARA SWAMY,, S/O. SURIBABU, AGED 44 YEARS, BUSINESS AND CULTIVATION, R/O SABBAVARAM VILLAGE ...PETITIONER SRI PATANSETTY RAVI SUBASH, S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS PANCHAYAT WING, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT AT ANAKAPALLE, ERSTWHILE VISAKHPATNAM SMT R SIRISHA RANI, W/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ANAKAPALLE, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, EM KUMAR, 3. , S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SABBAVARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SABBAVARAM VILLAGE, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHPATNAM DISTRICT. SRI BELLAPU SATYANARAYANA, 4., S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING ILDAR, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, SRI KARRI SRINIVASA RAO, 5. S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS 2 MANDAL SURVEYOR, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT. 6. SRI SRNV RAMESH, 6. S/O. NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, R AND B DEPARTMENT, SABBAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE VISAKHPATNAM 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 punish the respondents Under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for their willful disobedience of order Dt. 16.08.2023 passed in W.P No. 17411 of 2023 on the file of this Hon’ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. ASHOK RAM V 2. P SUBASH 3. K M KRISHNA REDDY 4. KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI 5. N SRIHARI 3 The Court made the following order: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.17411 of 2023. 2. Heard Smt Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Praneetha, learned counsel, representing Sri Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri Sriram, learned counsel, representing Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Sasivardhan, learned counsel, representing Sri V.Ashok Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that this Court vide order dated 16.08.2023 directed the respondent authority concerned to follow procedure contemplated under law while constructing CC drainage in front of the petitioner’s subject property and the said order was duly communicated to the respondents. She further submitted that on 30.12.2023, at about 9:00 A.M., the respondents, along with their personnel, visited the subject property for the purpose of constructing drainage, but the petitioner objected the same by producing the copy of the Court order, however, the respondents orally stated that the relief sought in the said writ petition concerned only to the 'front yard site', and subsequently, without following the due process of law or without initiating 4 land acquisition proceedings, the respondents unlawfully entered the 'backyard site' of the petitioner and destroyed the existing fencing. Thus, the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of this Court, as such, they are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents in one voice submitted that the authorities have not constructed drainage in front of the petitioner’s property. Even in the contempt affidavit, the petitioner categorically pleaded that the drainage has been constructed in the backyard of the petitioner’s property. They further contended that if the petitioner has any grievance regarding construction of drainage in the backyard of the property, he may raise the issue before the appropriate forum, as the scope of the Contempt is very limited. They further submitted that the petitioner, having knowledge about the order passed by this Court, has filed the present Contempt Case only to harass the respondent officials and there is no contempt as alleged by the petitioner and prayed to close the Contempt Case. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. This Court, vide order dated 16.08.2023, disposed of the Writ Petition No.17411 of 2023. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: 5 “The respondent-authority concerned is directed to follow procedure contemplated under law while constructing CC drainage in front of the petitioner’s subject property.” 7. Perusal of the said order shows that a specific direction was given to the authorities to follow procedure while constructing CC drainage in front of the petitioner’s subject property. This Court clearly mentioned in the order ‘in front of the petitioner’s subject property’. Perusal of the Contempt affidavit of the petitioner indicates that the respondent authorities have constructed drainage on the back side of the petitioner’s property, but without following the due process of law. This Court cannot go into the aspect that the authorities have followed due process of law in constructing drainage on the ‘back side of the petitioner’s property’ or not in the present Contempt proceedings, as the Contempt Court’s jurisdiction is limited to determine whether the contemnor has willfully disobeyed the order of the adjudicating Court, and if so, to punish for civil contempt. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents, the drainage has not been constructed in front of the petitioner’s subject property as specifically directed in the order, as such, there is no contempt as alleged by the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, this Court do not find any disobedience of the order as alleged by the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of the contempt as mandated by the statutory provisions, this 6 Court is not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents, it is liable to be closed. 9. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Contempt Case, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 17.07.2025 MP 7 354 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO:44 of 2024 Date: 17.07.2025 MP 8