APHC010634942013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1234/2013 Between: Bhaikar Mangaraj and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND D Yogeswar Rao ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A JAGANNADHA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. B D MAHESWARA REDDY 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 3. SHANTHI NEELAM The Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The above contempt case is filed complaining violation of the order dated 13.06.2011 in W.P.No.11524 of 2011. The petitioners filed the writ petition, aggrieved by the inaction of the 3rd respondent, Municipality, in maintaining the public drainage system in Rangreeju Street. The said writ petition is disposed of on the instructions of the learned standing counsel. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: 2 “Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Vizianagaram Municipality on instructions stated that it is a fact that the public drainage system in Rangreeju Street of Vizianagaram Municipality, which was constructed with brick arch drain, long back had collapsed. It is also stated that the Municipality has now proposed to construct a new drain to enable the free flow of sullage water from the houses of the petitioners with an estimate cost of Rs.1.00 lakh from Internal Roads and Drains Grant. It is also assured that the work will be commenced within one month and it will be completed within two months on or before 09.08.2011. In view of what has been stated by the learned Standing Counsel, no further enquiry is necessary and accordingly, recording the statement of the learned Standing Counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.” 3. The above contempt case was filed in July, 2013. In Para No.4 of the affidavit, it was stated that after disposal of the writ petition, the petitioners approached the respondents, and in fact, a copy of the order was sent through registered post on 11.07.2012. However, the order was not implemented. 4. The above contempt case is listed on 09.10.2013, and the matter is adjourned from time to time. Notice was not ordered. 5. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act deals with the limitation of actions for contempt. No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its motion or otherwise, after expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 6. In the case at hand, the writ petition was disposed of on 13.06.2011. As per the direction, the work will be completed on or before 09.08.2011. Thus, if the respondents fail to comply with the order, the cause of action to file the contempt arose on 9.08.2012. The petitioners communicated a copy of the order to the respondents by registered post by 11.07.2012. However, the contempt was filed a year after and hence, in the opinion of this Court, it is barred by limitation. 3 7. The opinion of this Court is fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian & Ors1. 8. Hence, the contempt case is closed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 04.03.2025 KA 1 2001 (7) SCC 549 4 174 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1234/2013 Date: 04.03.2025 KA