APHC010153922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1168/2025 Between: 1. ANNAPUREDDY SAROJANAMMA, W/O ESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, THIRNMAPURAM POST, GIDDALUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRINIVASULU, S/o not known to the Petitioner, Occ Municipal Commissioner, The Giddalur Municipality, Represented by its Commissioner, Office at Giddalur, Prakasam 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 punish the respondent for his willful and deliberate violation of the orders made by this Hon'ble Court dated 24.03.2022 made in W.P.No.7419 of 2022 by his Lordships Hon'ble Sri Justice TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. GUDAPATI LAKSHMI NARAYANA The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1168 of 2025 ORDER: The present contempt case is filed complaining the violation of the order dated 24.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.7419 of 2022. 2. This Court vide order dated 24.03.2022, directed the respondents to maintain status-quo obtained as on the date of passing the order with regard to the subject property. 3. The sole respondent-Municipal Commissioner has filed a reply and stated that notice was issued to one Sri Kopparapu Satyanaryana and thereafter, an action was taken against him and thus, the respondent has not violated the order of this Court. It is further stated that the property of the petitioner is situated in Sy.No.466/2b1 of Giddaluru Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. 4. As there is a discrepancy in the survey numbers, this Court has taken a lenient view. However, the respondent has not rendered any explanation for the violation of the order and this Court expresses the anguish and condemns the attitude adopted by the respondent-Municipal Commissioner. More so, holding such a responsible post, he must have some sense of responsibility and should have been aware of what the minimum requirements are, while filing reply/counter to the contempt case, and even if he did not know, he should have consulted any law officer before filing the affidavit. Hence, this Court is inclined to impose costs of Rs.5,000/-, payable to the petitioner within one week from today. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall inform this Court as to whether the petitioner has received the said amount. 5. Contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor. After furnishing such information, the petitioner may still assist the Court. However, it must always be borne in mind that in a contempt proceeding there are only two parties, namely, the Court and the contemnor. The petitioner should not be unaware that no substantial, much less positive, directions were given in favour of the petitioner herein, to justify the initiation of contempt proceedings in the present case. 6. In view of the above, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 17.12.2025 TVN 160 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Contempt Case No.1168 of 2025 17.12.2025 TTVVNN