APHC010565692024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4715/2024 Between: 1. SANNDI GOPINATH REDDY, S/O.MUNIRATHNAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 46YEARS, R/O. ARLAPADU VILLAGE, PELLAKUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHILLAKURU MOHAN REDDY, S/O MUNIKRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 42YEARS, R/O. ARLAPADU VILLAGE, PELLAKUR MANDAL,TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for the Contempt Petitioner and Sri T.D Phani Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned Counsel for the Contemnor. 2 2. It is the contention of the Writ Petitioner that after this Order was passed on 07.08.2024, the Unofficial Respondents in the Writ Petition planted a paddy crop on the cart-track. 3. Time was granted to the Writ Petitioner to place on record the status of the field obtaining on the date of the Order i.e. on 07.08.2024 and the date on which the photograph indicating plantation of paddy crop is reflected. However, the Writ Petitioner has failed to place on record the condition of the cart-track as on the date when the Order of Status-quo was passed by this Court on 07.08.2025. 4. The Petitioner herein is unable to place on record any photograph to indicate that there was a cart-track existing on the date when this Court passed an order dated 07.08.2024 in W.P. No. 18395 of 2023, directing the Respondents not to obstruct the Writ Petitioner’s cart or his men or machinery who travel through the track. 5. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Contempt Petitioner has failed to prove that the Respondents have committed any violation of the Order of this Court. 6. In this view of the matter, this Contempt case is closed. No order as to costs. 7. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation on merit, insofar as the issues involved in W.P.No.18395 of 2023 is concerned. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 01.04.2025 DSV