APHC010601722017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 659/2017 Between: 1. VTUPALLE RAJANNA, S/O LATE V.SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: LLB GRADUATE, RESIDENT. OF PULUKUNTAVARIPALLE NUTHANKALVA POST, K.V.PALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI RAMACHANDRA, THE MANDAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, K. V. PALLE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. G SESHADRI(SC FOR MPP,ZPP) The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: None for the parties. 2. This Contempt Case is of the year 2017. The Petitioner in the Contempt Case complains of inaction on the part of the Respondents with respect to the Order of this Court dated 06.07.2015 in W.P.No.29221 of 2024. 3. The Operative portion of the Order of this Court dated 06.07.2015 in W.P.No.29221 of 2024 reads as under: <4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application in accordance with the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.101, Social Welfare (SCP.I) Department, dated 31.12.2013, and if any such application is made, the same shall be considered by the respondents and appropriate action be taken in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.101, Social Welfare (SCP.I) Department dated 31.12.2013 as expeditiously as possible. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.= 4. The above extract would indicate that the Petitioner was given liberty to approach the Government by submitting an Application, and if such application is submitted, the Respondents were directed to consider the same in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.101, Social Welfare (SCP.I) Department, dated 31.12.2013. The present Contempt Case is filed by the Petitioner complaining of inaction. 5. The Affidavit filed in support of the Application would indicate that the Petitioner had applied for grant of loan through the online portal by submitting all the relevant documents and educational qualifications, and that in the month of February 2017, interviews were conducted. It is also stated in Para 8 of the Affidavit that the Petitioner had attended the interview and had brought to the notice of the authorities the Order of this Court dated 06.07.2015. Having acknowledged the same, the Respondents assured that they will send the Application to the bank concerned. 3 6. Taking into account the above-mentioned averments, this Court is of the opinion that the Respondents had complied with the Order of this Court by entertaining the Application submitted by the Writ Petitioner. This is established by the fact that the Petitioner was in fact called for the interview in the month of February 2017. 7. Having considered the same, this Court is also of the view that the present contempt proceedings cannot examine or entertain the outcome of the interview. Under these facts, this Court is satisfied that the Respondents had complied with the Order of this Court by accepting the Application of the Petitioner and having him interviewed in the month of February 2017. 8. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 12.11.2025 DSV 4 238 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 659/2017 12.11.2025 DSV 5 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. CONTEMPT CASE NO: 659/2017 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 3. 12.11.2025 GRKP, J Contempt Case is closed. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV 6