1 APHC010541252024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4540/2024 Between: 1. CHAPPIDI ABRAHAM, S/O. YESU RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCC MEMBER, CSI ST, THOMAS CHURCH, PEZZONIPET, R/O. PEZZONIPET, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER AND 1. REV DR T GEORGE CORNELIOUS, CHAIRMAN, THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION (CSITA) KRISHNA GODAVARI DIOCESE, 2. TANTEPUDI RAVI SECRETARY, KRISHNA GODAVARI DIOCESE, CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA, C/O. KG DIOCESE, CSITA BASE COMPLEX,VIJAYAWADA. ...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 pleased to summon the respondents herein and punish them for their willful dis obedience in implementing the orders dated 13.9.2024 passed in WP No. 20347/2024 and punish them under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts of Act in the Interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SREEDHAR Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 2 1. A SRINIVAS The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4540/2024 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court passed an interim order dated 13.09.2024 in W.P.No.20347 of 2024, which is extracted hereunder: “Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, there shall be an interim direction directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to proceed with the subject meeting to be conducted on 14.09.2024 pursuant to the notice dated 12.06.2024, for a period of two(2) weeks.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pending the Writ Petition and while existence of the interim order passed by this court as extracted above, but in violation of the same, the respondents proceeded further and conducted meeting and also conducted elections contrary to the orders of this Court. As such, the respondents are liable for punishment under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this Court directed the respondents not to conduct any meeting on 14.09.2024 pursuant to the notice dated 12.06.2024. The respondents did not conduct any meeting on 14.09.2024 pursuant to the notice dated 12.06.2024. He further submits that the respondents empowered to issue fresh notice and to transact in 4 accordance with the bylaws of the society. Accordingly, the respondents issued a notice afresh on 20.11.2024 and proceeded further pursuant to the said notice. As such, it cannot be said it is in violation or disobedience of the orders of this Court. 5. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the orders of this Court, it is observed that the petitioner specifically invited the order of this Court for restraining the respondents from conducting meeting on 14.09.2024 pursuant to the notice dated 12.06.2024. This Court specifically passed an order restraining the respondents not to conduct meeting on 14.09.2024 pursuant to the notice dated 12.06.2024. It is not the case of the petitioner that this Court directed the respondents not to conduct any meeting and issue a notice thereafter. It is further observed that the respondents admitted that they did not conduct any meeting on 14.09.2024 pursuant to the notice dated 12.06.2024 in violation/disobedience of the order of this Court. The respondents being a society is empowered to proceed further to issue another notice and to conduct meeting in accordance with bylaws as well as law empowered to them. The issuance of notice on 20.11.2024 for conducting meeting thereafter, does not fell within the ambit of interim direction of this Court dated 13.09.2024. Therefore, the action of the respondents in issuance of notice dated 20.11.2024 and conducting meeting thereafter, cannot be found fault with and cannot be determined as in violation or disobedience on the part of the respondents. 5 6. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds neither it is an act of violation nor disobedience to be attracted under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 7. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 11.09.2025 TTPPSS 6 245 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4540/2024 11.09.2025 TTPPSS