APHC010546032024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4517/2024 Between: 1. VANGAPANDU KOTESWARA RAO, , AGED 58 YEARS, MALE, OCC AGRICULTURE, S/O.CHINA VENKATESWARA RAO, R/O. SATYAVOLU (V), PEDAPADU (M), ELURU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. K ANURADHA, The District Panchayat Officer, Gavaravaram, Eluru. Eluru 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 Pleased to summon the Respondent for willfully, intentionally and deliberately violating the Honble High Court passed orders in W.P.No.9510 of 2024 dated 9/5/2024 and Punish the Respondent accordingly under sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B P RAJU Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. RAMA RAO KOCHIRI The Court made the following: RC,J C.C.No.4517/2024 2 ORDER This Contempt Case is filed complaining willful disobedience of the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9510 of 2024. 2. Heard Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Kochiri Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent. 3. Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration would submit that this Court vide orders dated 09.05.2024 directed the District Gram Panchayat Officer to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s appeal in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. He would further submit that even after lapse of six (06) months, the petitioner’s appeal was not disposed of and therefore there is delibertate and willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to allow the contempt case and punish the respondent. 4. Sri Kochiri Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent, in elaboration to the contents of the counter affidavit would submit that pursuant to the order dated 09.05.2024, notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.05.2024 requiring the petitioner to appear for personal hearing on 17.05.2024 and accordingly the petitioner appeared. He would further contend that after hearing both sides, the District Panchayat Officer, directed the Extension RC,J C.C.No.4517/2024 3 Officer (PR & RD) was directed to conduct survey and submit report, who accordingly submitted report on 18.06.2024 and thereafter the Divisional Panchayat Officer was required to offer remarks on the said report and ultimately the appeal was disposed of on 4.1.2025 and speaking orders were served on the petitioner on 16.01.2025 and hence there is no disobedience of the orders as alleged by the petitioner. He would further submit that reason for delay in disposal of the appeal is purely administrative occurred in receiving report and remarks from the concerned, but not due to any deliberate or willful disobedience. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though this Court directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, no notice was issued and no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner and therefore, the orders passed by this Court has not been complied with in its true letter and spirit and as such the respondent is guilty of willful disobedience of the orders. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. This Court disposed of the writ petition No.9510 of 2024 directing the District Gram Panchayat Officer to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s RC,J C.C.No.4517/2024 4 appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible not later than three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Admittedly, the appeal was not decided within the time stipulated. The reason offered by the respondent is that the same is only the administrative delay. According to the respondent, she took charge on 04.10.2024 and upon verification of the report submitted by District Panchayat Officer on 18.06.2024, she issued memo dated 20.11.2024 to Divisional Panchayat Officer asking him to offer remarks, who inturn submitted the same on 04.01.2025 and the appeal was disposed of on the same day. Therefore, soonafter assumption of charge the respondent took steps and disposed of the appeal within a reasonable time. Most of the delay is from the date of receipt of receipt on 18.06.2024 to till she assumed charge on 04.10.2024. Hence, the delay occurred in disposing of the appeal has satisfactorily been explained by the respondent and therefore, the same cannot be countenanced as a ground of disobedience as alleged by petitioner. 8. Regarding the next contention of the petitioner regarding not issuing notice and not affording opportunity of hearing to him; the respondent, in her counter affidavit, has clearly mentioned issuance of notice to the petitioner and his attendance in response thereto. Except submitting arguments, the petitioner did not file reply affidavit refuting the averments regarding issuance RC,J C.C.No.4517/2024 5 of notice. If at all the petitioner thinks that he has not been given opportunity of hearing, he can make the same as a ground to challenge the orders passed by respondent before appellate authority, but the same cannot be make basis to hold that there is willful disobedience of orders of this Court. 9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any willful disobedience on the part of the respondent as alleged by the petitioner. There are no merits in this Contempt Case and the same can be closed. 10. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J RR RC,J C.C.No.4517/2024 6 HIGH COURT RCJ DATED:27/06/2025 ORDER CC 4517/2024