APHC010409812017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1436 OF 2017 Between: 1. DAVARASINGHU VENKATALAKSHMI,, W/O. DAVARASINGHU UDAYA BHASKAR RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, RIO. DOOR NO. 3-8, TURANGI VILLAGE, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI JONNADA NARASIMHA RAO, The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kakinada. ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRIDHAR Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. K V RAJASREE The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: None for the Petitioner. 2. This Contempt Case is filed complaining of non-compliance of the Order passed by this Court dated 07.02.2017 in W.P.No.3600 of 2017. The operative portion of the said Order is usefully extracted hereunder: 2 “At the hearing, it is submitted by the learned Standing counsel that the Gram Panchayat will take appropriate action in accordance with law. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that the respondents 5 and 6 may also be given notice before taking any action. In view of the above submissions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to take appropriate action on the legal notice, dated 19.12.2016, said to have been issued by the petitioner, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 3. The above extract would indicate that this Court had directed the Respondent No.4 therein namely the Secretary, Grama Panchayat to take appropriate action on the Legal Notice dated 19.12.2016, which is said to have been issued by the Writ Petitioner. 4. It transpires from the record that this Contempt Case is only listed two times earlier i.e., on 18.08.2017 and 10.11.2017. It is stated in Para-8 of the Affidavit filed in support of this Contempt Case that the Respondents have not initiated any action on the Legal Notice dated 19.12.2016 and the said inaction is willful disobedience on the part of the Respondents. The Order passed by this Court, extracted above, would only indicate that the Respondent No.4 was directed to take appropriate action on the Legal Notice dated 19.12.2016. 5. Having regard to the above facts, this Court is of the view that since this Contempt Case is of the year 2017, this Court is not inclined to adjourn this Contempt Case any further. This apart, having considered the above facts, this Court is of the view that no cause survives in this Contempt Case. 6. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. 3 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 17.12.2025 Mnr 4 111 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE No.1436 OF 2017 Dt: 17.12.2025 Mnr