APHC010360602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1827/2025 Between: 1. PEKETI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. SURIBABU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.DR.NO.2-103,LAKSHMI NARAYANA TEMPLE STREET, CHANDRAPALEM VILLAGE POST, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT - 533 450. 2. TALATAM SIVANARAYANA, S/O. RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.DR.NO.3-21, MAIN ROAD, CHANDRAPALEM VILLAGE POST, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT - 533 450. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SRI G SESHA GIRI RAO, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, Y.L. DIVISION, PEDDAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT - 533 437. 2. MEDIDHI NOOKA RAJU, S/O. DURGAYYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.DR. 1-280, MANDAPAKA VARI VEEDHI, CHANDRAPALEM VILLAGE POST, SAMARLAKOTAMANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT- 533 440. 3. DEGALA MURALI KRISHNA, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. 0PP. LAKHSMINARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE, PATIMIDA, CHANDRAPALEM VILLAGE POST, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT - 533 440. ...CONTEMNOR(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V S K RAMA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SRINIVAS BASAVA The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1827 of 2025 ORDER: - 1. The present contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents herein have violated the order dated 02.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.16121 of 2025. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent Nos.2 and 3 were granted permission for excavation and transportation of 5,000 Cubic Meters of silt from the tank Masjid Cheruvu, R.Chandrapalem Village, Samarlakota Mandal of Kakinada District by virtue of proceedings dated 17.05.2025 by respondent No.1. The writ petition was filed on the premise that despite completing the time granted in the said proceedings, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein/ respondent Nos.8 and 9 in the writ petition continued to excavate the silt from the subject lands. This Court, by order dated 02.07.2025 directed respondent No.2 in the writ petition/respondent No.1 herein to see that respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein do not excavate the silt. 2. It is further case of the petitioners that respondent Nos.2 and 3 in utter violation of the order of this Court, continued to excavate the silt from the subject lands and in that regard, a representation dated 04.07.2025 was made by the petitioners to the respondent No.1 herein. Despite making the said representation, there is no action from the respondent No.1. Questioning the same, the present contempt case is filed. 3. Per contra, Sri Srinivas Basava, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 placed instructions dated 18.08.2025 furnished by the respondent No.1. On perusal of the said instructions, it is stated that the 4 permission granted in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein was cancelled by proceedings dated 15.06.2025 and instructed them to stop de-silting operations immediately, as the specified quantity for which permission is accorded is completed. The instructions further reads that South West Monsoon has entered into the coastal region and rains have already started. Therefore, the question of further excavating the silt from the subject lands does not arise. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the material available on record. 5. The present contempt petition is filed alleging that the respondents have violated interim order dated 02.07.2025 passed in writ petition No.16121 of 2025. Along with the contempt petition, the petitioners state that they made a representation dated 04.07.2025 to the respondent No.1 informing that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are continuing the excavation of silt from the subject lands. Though it is stated that a representation dated 04.07.2025 is made to the respondent No.1, nothing is placed on record to show that the said representation is submitted to the respondent No.1. On the contrary, a perusal of the record, it is clear that the permission that was granted to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is for a period of 15 days and it is specifically stated that after completion of the said period, de-silting activity was stopped and in fact, the permission granted in favour of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 was also cancelled by proceedings dated 15.06.2025 as the specified quantity was 5 already excavated. Copy of the said proceedings is annexed to the instructions dated 18.08.2025. The same are placed on record. 6. As already noted supra, except making bald statement in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition, the petitioners failed to substantiate that the respondents have violated the order passed by this Court. In the absence of any evidence, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners cannot be countenanced in view of proceedings dated 15.06.2025 issued by the 1st respondent. From the above, it is clear that there are no merits in the contempt case and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Date:29.08.2025 Dvs 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 8 CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1827 of 2025 Date:29.08.2025 Dvs