APHC010029132024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: Between: 1. THE INTEGRATED TRIBAL (E AND R) DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, T. VENKATA SIVA RAM, S/O KRISHNA VENN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O KURUKUTTI VILLAGE, SALURU MANDAL, (PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT), VIZIANAGARAM 1. CH GAUTAMI KUMARI, Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Elwinpeta, Gummalakshmipuram Mandal, Parvathipuram District, O/o Old ATW office, ITDA Quarters, C.Belagam, Parvathipuram 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 punish the Respondent for violating/disobeying the Order dt. 12-10-2023 passed in W.P.No.20297/2023 by initiating the contempt proceedings as per Sections Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. SOMA RAJU YELISETTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1010/2024 THE INTEGRATED TRIBAL (E AND R) DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, T. VENKATA SIVA RAM, S/O KRISHNA VENN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O KURUKUTTI VILLAGE, SALURU MANDAL, (PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT), VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND CH GAUTAMI KUMARI, Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Elwinpeta, Gummalakshmipuram Mandal, Parvathipuram District, O/o Old ATW office, ITDA Quarters, C.Belagam, Parvathipuram-535501. ...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 punish the Respondent for violating/disobeying the Order n W.P.No.20297/2023 by initiating the contempt proceedings as per Sections-10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor: SOMA RAJU YELISETTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI THE INTEGRATED TRIBAL (E AND R) DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, T. VENKATA SIVA RAM, S/O KRISHNA VENN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O KURUKUTTI VILLAGE, SALURU MANDAL, (PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM ...PETITIONER CH GAUTAMI KUMARI, Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Elwinpeta, Gummalakshmipuram Mandal, Parvathipuram District, O/o 535501. ...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 punish the Respondent for violating/disobeying the Order n W.P.No.20297/2023 by initiating the contempt 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act and pass 2 The Court made the following order: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondent for willful disobedience of the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.20297 of 2023. 2. Heard Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yelisetti Somaraju, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that this Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition, directed respondent No.3 to consider the documents and other evidence, if any, produced by the petitioner society and dispose of the LTR cases as expeditiously as possible. He further contended that respondent No.3 has not considered the documents/material produced by the petitioner while passing orders, as such, it amounts to willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. Hence, the respondents are liable to be punished under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and prayed to pass orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit, contended that the authorities, based on the material available on record, have passed the order. The material alleged to have been produced by the petitioner was received by the respondent after the order was passed. He further submitted that, if the petitioner-society has any grievance, it may prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum to seek 3 redressal. There are no merits in the Contempt Case and prayed to dismiss the same. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the rejoinder affidavit, contended that after dispatch of the order of this Court on 22.11.2023, the petitioner personally went to the respondent with a copy of the order on 25.11.2023. As the respondent refused to receive the same, he sent it through registered post on 28.11.2023. When the order of this Court dispatched on 22.11.2023 by evening, the respondent, without providing an opportunity of being heard and without considering the documents submitted on 26.04.2023, disposed of the LTR cases on 23.11.2023. 6. Perusal of the record would indicate that when the respondent authorities have not considered the material/documents and evidence filed by the petitioner-society in 51 LTR cases pending before respondent No.3, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.20297 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 12.10.2023 disposed of the said Writ Petition. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to consider the documents/material and other evidence, if any, produced by the petitioner society and dispose of the LTR cases, as expeditiously as possible.” 7. Perusal of the counter of respondent would indicate that the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare passed order on 23.11.2023, but the registered post sent by the petitioner has been received by the respondent on 4 28.11.2023. Perusal of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner also indicates that the petitioner personally approached the respondent with a copy of the order on 25.11.2023, however, by that time, the respondent had already passed the order. Hence, there is no willful disobedience of the orders. 8. In view of the same, as there is no willful disobedience as alleged by the petitioner, there is nothing for adjudication and the Contempt Case is liable to be closed. 9. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Contempt Case, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 27.06.2025 MP 5 155 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO:1010 of 2024 Date: 27.06.2025 MP