IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVA s- THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARClig TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE v\Vv- \ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3974 OF 2024 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondent herein for their wilful violation and deliberate disobedience to the orders dated 28.03.2024 in W.P. No. 33013 of 2023 by this Hon'ble Court. praying Between: N Sreekanth Prasad, S/o. N.Radhakrishna Prasad, aged 53 years, R/o. H.N0.21/2-I-A, Bhavani Nilayam, Near SKD Colony, 6th Road, Adoni Town and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Shasibhusan Kumar, Spl. Chief Secretary to Govt, PR and RD, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. Sri Peeyush Kumar, IAS, Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 3. B.Nageswara rao, Superintending Engineer, RWS and S Circle, Kurnool ...Contemnors 1 and 2 vide CO (Contempt Case not pressed against Respondents 26.10.2024) lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may pleased to permit the petitioner/proposed respondent No.4 to implead oh record as the respondent No.4 in the above Contempt Case and * I pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. GINJUPALLI SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: SRI K DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR The Court made the following order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010448402024 [3332] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3974/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER N Sreekanth Prasad AND ...CONTEMNOR(S) Shasibhusan Kumar and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G1NJUPALLI SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR 2.. The Court made the following order: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of orders dated 28.03.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33013/2023. Heard Sri G.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri 2. O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the contemnors/respo ndents. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been 3. stated in the affidavit contended that, the Superintending Engineer, Kurnool District, has cancelled the petitioner’s "Contract vide proceedings dated % 01.09.2023, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.33013 of 2023 which was allowed by this Court by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 01.09.2023 and further a liberty was also given to the concerned authority to take steps in accordance with law. In spite of the said order, the Government had made subsequent contract with one Sri Boya Nagendra, which is not valid in view of the orders passed by this Court. The respondents herein are willfully flouting and deliberately disobeying the orders of this court and are guilty of contempt of Courts and liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act and accordingly prayed to punish the respondents herein. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/contemnors contended that, the contract period with the petitioner is from 11.05.2023 to 31.03.2024. The petitioner’s contract was cancelled vide proceedings dated 01.09.2023 and the petitioner has filed the writ petition on 20.12.2023 wherein this Court has disposed of the same on 28.03.2024 i.e., four days prior to the completion of contract and by virtue of the said reason, the contemnor could not implement the orders of this Court by giving contract to the petitioner once again that too after completion of contract period. He further submitted that the contemnor has utmost respect towards this Court and rendered unconditional apology and prayed to 4. exonerate the contemnor and close the contempt case. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned 5. counsel. A perusal of the record would indicate that the contract period of the petitioner is from 11.05.2023 to 31.03.2024, the order impugned in the writ petition is passed on 01.09.2023 and the petitioner has filed the said writ petition on 20.12.2023 wherein this Court has disposed of the same on 28.03.2024 i.e., four days prior to the completion of contract, on the ground that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of personal hearing. This Court is of the opinion that, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, when the contract period of the petitioner is about to expire, in view of the orders of this Court, the contract could not be given to the petitioner once again. Further, this Court is satisfied with the explanation rendered by the contemnors for not implementing the orders of this Court and as the contemnors have rendered an unconditional apology, this Court would like to exonerate the respondeht/contemnor (Superintending Engineer) for the words 6. -■"l, . that are incofporafed in the order passed by him. In view of the above, this Contempt case is dismissed, having found that there is no willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court by the However, the petitioner is always at liberty to approach appropriate forum for damages, if any, if so advised. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stands closed. Sd/- M SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR 7. respondents. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Superintending Engineer, RWS and S Circle, Kurnool 2. One CC to Sri. Ginjupalli Subba Rao Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K Devi Prasannakumar Advocate [OPUC] 1. B.Nageswara rao. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:27/03/2025 ORDER CC.No.3974 of 2024 |[^2 2 JUL 2025 ^wrentSectioji^^'^ CONTEMPT CASE IS DISMISSED