APHC010872102016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 593 OF 2016 Between: 1. MD.SUNEER, KURNOOL, S/o. Dr.Mohd Ghouse, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.40-808H-6A, Srinivasa Nagar Kurnool . ...Petitioner AND 1. VIJAY KUMAR HYD 2 OTHERS, S/o. Not Known, Principle Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of AP, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. Sri Samuel Anand Kumar, S/o. Not Known, Managing Director, A.P.Schedule Caste Co Operative Finance Corporation Limited, V Floor, Telugu Sankshema Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3. Sri Saraiah, S/o. Not Known, Executive Director, Kurnool District Schedule Caste Services Co-Operative Limited, Kumool, Kurnool District. 4. K Thulasi Devi, Executive Director,DSCSCS Ltd., Kurnool R 4 impleaded as Suo Moto as per court order dated 11/09/25 in CC No-593 of 2016. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: K V L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GANDRALA RATHNA KUMAR SC For APSCCFC LTD Counsel for the Respondents:BABUJI TENNETI (S C FOR APSC CFC) Counsel for the Respondents:CHITNA CHINA SATYANARAYANA ( SC FOR APSCCFC) Counsel for the Respondents:B PRAKASAM ( SC FOR AP APSCCFC) 2 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner; Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 and Sri G. Ratna Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4. 2. Smt. K. Thulasi Devi, Executive Director, DSCSCS Ltd., Kurnool appeared before this Court. 3. The present Contempt Case is filed complaining non-compliance of the Order passed by this Court dated 20.01.2015 in W.P.No.19494 of 2006. Relevant portion of the Order of the learned Single Judge is usefully extracted hereunder: “A bare perusal of the impugned order manifestly shows that the 3rd respondent did not refer to the said reports submitted by the Tahsildar and the letter of the Executive Director dated 16.11.2005. Since this Court, in the earlier writ petition, specifically directed the respondents to consider the representation in the light of the report of the Deputy Tahsildar and the letter of the Executive Director dated 16.11.2005, the 3rd respondent is not justified in ignoring and discarding the same. There is absolutely no justification on the part of the 3rd respondent in neither referring nor considering the said report and the letter. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order vide proceedings in Rc.No.POU/2005, dated 30.08.2006, passed by the Executive Director of the 3rd respondent society and the matter is remanded to the respondents 2 and 3 for fresh consideration and for passing appropriate orders in the light of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.2079 of 2007, after giving notice and affording opportunity to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. The above extract would indicate that the learned Single Judge had directed the Official Respondents to consider the Reports submitted by the Tahsildar and also the Letter of the Executive Director dated 16.11.2005. The Official Respondents have passed an Order on 24.08.2015 (which is at Page No.33 of the Paper Book). On perusal of the said Proceeding, it transpires that the Respondents had passed an Order without considering the Reports 3 submitted by the Tahsildar and the Letter of the Executive Director dated 16.11.2005. 5. Having been aggrieved of the non-consideration of the above mentioned proceedings while passing the Order on 24.08.2015, the present Contempt Case is filed. 6. The Petitioner also would contend that prior notice before passing the Order dated 24.08.2015 was also not given, which is also in violation of the Order of this Court dated 20.01.2015. During the pendency of the present Contempt Case, Respondent No.4 had passed an another Order dated 14.08.2025. The same is also filed along with the Counter Affidavit. This Court has perused the Order dated 14.08.2025. The Respondent No.4 has also not considered the Reports of the Tahsildar and the Letter of the Executive Director dated 16.11.2005. 7. Having noted the same, this Court vide Proceeding dated 11.09.2025, had Suo moto impleaded Smt. K. Thulasi Devi, Executive Director, DSCSCS Ltd., Kurnool, who is prima-facie guilty of the contempt of the Court. This Court had directed the said Officer to personally appear before the Court. Admittedly, the Respondents have not complied with the Order of the Court, wherein the specific direction was given to the Executive Director to consider the Reports submitted by the Tahsildar and Letter of the Executive Director dated 16.11.2005 and pass an Order. For the purpose of complying with this Order, the Officer is required to consider the same and give reasons for accepting the Reports of the Tahsildar and the Letter of the Executive Director or vary with the same by giving proper reasons/justification. However in the Proceeding issued by the Respondent No.4 dated 14.08.2025, no such consideration with proper application of mind has been made with respect to those proceedings mentioned above. 8. However, this Court is of the opinion that one final opportunity should be granted to the incumbent Officer to consider the Reports of the Tahsildar 4 and the Letter of the Executive Director dated 16.11.2005 and pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law. Needless to state that the earlier Order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the V.C & Managing Director and the latest Order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Executive Director are held as non est in the eye of law, inasmuch as the said Orders have been passed without complying with the direction of this Court. The present incumbent (Respondent No.4) is directed to adhere to the Order passed by this Court dated 20.01.2015 and pass the fresh Orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. The Contempt Petitioner is directed to submit fresh Representation along with photocopies of all relevant documents which he intends to place reliance within two weeks from today. 9. With these observations and directions, this Contempt Case stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 16.10.2025 JKS 5 73 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 593 OF 2016 16.10.2025 JKS