APHC010360292024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3484/2024 Between: Ponneru Raghupathi ...PETITIONER AND Sri Amaranth ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. NAGARAJU NAGURU 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 27.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.4735 of 2023. 2. Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order of this Court, disobedience of which is complained of in this contempt has been complied with by giving an endorsement dated 23.09.2024 however with certain delay and the said delay is due to administrative reasons 2 and the said delay is neither willful nor wanton. Accordingly, prayed to close the contempt. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made a representation on 14.11.2023 as directed by this Court the same was not disposed of within 8 weeks but it was disposed of after 10 months. It is an abnormal delay not appropriate, as such, it amounts to willful disobedience and he is liable for punishment. 4. In reply, Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel submitted that the writ petition is disposed of on 27.02.2023 whereas the petitioner submitted representation on 14.11.2023 i.e., almost after 9 months. In view of the same, he cannot find fault with the authority. Even otherwise, due to administrative reasons the authority could not dispose of the said representation in the stipulated period and rendered unconditional apology and prayed to pass appropriate orders. 5. A perusal of the record would indicate that this Court disposed of the writ petition on 27.12.2023 giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent authorities. However the petitioner has submitted representation in the month of November, 2023 and further the authorities have passed orders but with certain delay and the explanation given is satisfied and this Court notices that there is no disobedience as alleged by the petitioner in the present contempt and the contempt case is liable to be closed. 3 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, he can take steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 06th March, 2025 RKS