1 APHC010013402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 98/2025 Between: 1. SRI PEDDA HUSSAIN SAHEB SWAMY DARGA SEVA DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, BEARING REGD. NO. 33/2013, D.NO. 1- 60, GORUKALLU VILLAGE. PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT BADEMDINNI SIVA NAGIREDDY, S/O NAGESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF REDDY VEEDHI GORUKALLU VILLAGE. PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. V KIRAN KUMAR, S/o not known, aged about 50 years. Inspector of Police Panyam, Pan)'am Mandal, Nandyal District. ...CONTEMNOR 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 may be pleased to punish the respondent/3rd respondent in the writ petition as per law for willfully and deliberately violating the order of this Hon ble Court dated 12-11-2024 made in W.P. No. 25149 of 2024 on the file of this Hon ble Court and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SRIRAM MURTHY Counsel for the Contemnor: 2 1. A JAYANTHI The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed for willful violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.25149 of 2024 on 12.11.2024, wherein this Court passed the following order: “….In view of the same, this Court instead of keeping the writ petition pending, feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the 3rd respondent requesting to hand over the keys, cash and articles to them and the same may be considered in accordance with law.” 2. The sole respondent has filed a counter-affidavit duly stating that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has submitted a fresh representation on 16.11.2024 and thereafter the sole official respondent herein has issued notice to respondent Nos.5 to 9 on 02.12.2024 requesting them to produce the property i.e., keys, cash and other articles, within three days to hand over the same to the petitioner. As the respondents did not respond to the 1st notice, thereafter four notices were issued on different dates, and finally, on 28.06.2025, the sole official respondent herein has called the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 9 and tried to resolve the issue by explaining the facts and conditions mentioned in the agreement dated 11.07.2024. However, respondent Nos.5 to 9 failed to comply with the said terms and conditions, and as the matter is of purely civil nature, the respondent has instructed both the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.5 to 9 to resolve the issue before the competent Court vide letter dated 28.06.2025. 4 3. In view of the fact that the representation made by the petitioner on 16.11.2024 has been disposed of by the respondent vide letter dated 28.06.2025, this Court do not find any contempt in the present case. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the letter dated 28.06.2025, if at all aggrieved with it. 4. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 18.07.2025 JLV