Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42128 (AP)

Mamidala Bhaskar v. Sri Gopala Krishna Dwivedi,

CC/2582/2022 · 2025-11-06

Battu Devanand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010390052022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2582/2022 Between: 1. MAMIDALA BHASKAR, S/O. VENKAIAH AGED 53 YEARS, RIO. PATHA KUCHIPUDIPALLI, 5TH WARD, PAMUR ROAD, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI GOPALA KRISHNA DWIVEDI, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED NOT KNOWN, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. - 522 503. 2. B SUBBA REDDY, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED NOT KNOWN, ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, OPPOSITE P.W.D. GROUNDS, VIJAYAWADA 520 002. 3. SRI S S RAWAT, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED NOT KNOWN, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. - 522 503. ...CONTEMNOR(S): 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 respondents herein for the willful, deliberate and wanton violation of the orders dt-22.02.2022 of this Hon'ble Court made in WP.No. 4244 /2022 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. ASHOK RAM V 2. KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2582 OF 2022 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed against the respondents complaining wilful disobedience of the order, dated 22.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.4244 of 2022. 2. During the course of hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the order of this Court is complied with and the payments are made to the petitioner as directed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also endorsed the same. 4. In view of the above factual position, in our considered view, no further adjudication is required in the Contempt Case. 5. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Contempt Case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date: 07.11.2025 TM