1 APHC010124412016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1029/2016 Between: 1. KASA SUDHAKAR, S/ O. KASA VENKATA,RAMANANAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. MAGHANIVARIVEEDHI, SANTHAPETA, NELLORE,'SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI K VENKATESHWARLU, THE COMMISSIONER, NELLORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. P SREE RAMULU NAIDU The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri C. Subodh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P. Sree Ramulu Naidu, learned Counsel for the sole Respondent. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Order passed by this Court dated 23.12.2015 in W.P.No.41898 of 2015. The present Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience by the then Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation. The relevant portion of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.12.2015 is usefully extracted hereunder: “Recording the submissions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 10.12.2015 of the writ petitioner in strict accordance with the procedure established by law, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 3rd respondent as well as the writ petitioner and ensure that the 3rd respondent proceeds with the construction in strict accordance with the approved plan. No costs.” 3. The above extract would indicate that this Court had rendered three directions to the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation. One direction is to dispose of the Representation of the Petitioner dated 10.12.2015. The 2nd direction is to ensure that the 3rd Respondent proceeds with the construction in accordance with the approved plan. The 3rd direction was to accord opportunity of hearing to the 3rd respondent as well as the Writ Petitioner before passing the Final Order. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Order passed by the sole Respondent in the present Contempt Case dated 25.02.2016 in compliance with the Order of this Court dated 23.12.2015. On perusal of the Order passed by the sole Respondent dated 25.02.2016, it transpires that the said sole Respondent has issued Notice to 3 the 3rd Respondent and had passed the Final Order directing the 3rd Respondent to remove the construction from the deviated portions. 5. The sole Respondent has also filed Counter Affidavit in the present Contempt Case. The Town Planning Officer, Nellore Municipal Corporation also has filed an Affidavit dated 24.12.2016. Along with the said Affidavit, the Town Planning Officer has placed on record the Interim Order of Temporary Injunction passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.42/2016 in O.S.No.40/2016 dated 03.02.2016. This Order is passed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C r/w Section 151. The Suit is filed for Permanent Injunction against the Nellore Municipal Corporation (sole Defendant) by Respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition namely one Smt. D. Jyothi. In the said Suit bearing O.S.No.40/2016, the trial Court granted an ad- interim injunction on 03.02.2016 which had been in operation for some time. It was therefore transpired that the Respondent was prevented from complying with the Order of this Court dated 23.12.2015 in view of the operation of the ad-interim injunction passed by the trial Court, as indicated above. 6. This apart, despite the fact that the Counter Affidavit has been filed way back on 26.12.2016, the Writ Petitioner/Contempt Petitioner herein had not taken any steps to implead himself in the pending Suit inasmuch as the Interim Order of Temporary Injunction operates against the Writ Petitioner itself. The Memo filed by the Petitioner on 23.11.2021 would indicate that the Suit filed by Respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition has been dismissed for default on 29.12.2016 but no Order has been placed on record. 7. Having regard to the above facts, this Court is satisfied that the Respondent herein has complied with the Order of this Court by passing an Order on 25.02.2016 after duly issuing Notice to the Respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition. The 2nd direction of this Court to ensure that Respondent No.3 proceeds with the construction strictly in compliance with the approved plan could not be implemented due to operation of the Interim Order of Temporary Injunction of the trial Court dated 03.02.2016. In this view of the matter, this 4 Court is of the view that it was beyond the control of the Respondent due to the operation of the Interim Order to comply with the same. It is a settled a law that the Court can take notice of willful disobedience but if the non-compliance is on account of reasons beyond the control of the party, particularly where the compliance is interdicted by a Judicial Order, no liability can be fastened upon such person or Authority. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the present Case. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Needless to state that the parties are at liberty to avail other legal remedies, as advised. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 27.11.2025 Vns