APHC010508622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2872/2025 Between: 1. HPM HIGH SCHOOL, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, SRI K.SOMASEKHAR, PALAKONDIA VILLAGE, ALLAGADDA MANDAL, NANDYALA DISTRICT. ERSTWHILE KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI KONA SASIDHAR IAS, THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TULLURU, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI PEEYUSH KUMAR IAS, THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, TULLURU, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. SRL VIJAY RAMA RAJU V IAS, THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, B- BLOCK,4TH FLOOR, SRI ANJENEYA TOWERS, NTTPS ROAD, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA-521456. 4. K SUDHAKAR REEDY, THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE KURNOOL DISTRICT) ANDHRA PRADESH ...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 2 be pleased to pleased to punish the respondent for the willful violation and deliberate disobedience to the orders passed by His Lordship Honble Sri Justice Venkateswara Rao Nimmagadda as made in WP No 25284 of 2023 Dated 26-09-2023, under section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the filing of Copy of Order dated 26.09.2025 in W.P. No. 25284 of 2023 passed by the Honble High Court and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M CHALAPATHI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. . The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2872/2025 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 26.09.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25284 of 2023. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this contempt case is filed alleging that orders of this Court dated 26.09.2023 are not complied with as directed by this Court. By the order dated 26.09.2023, this Court directed the respondents to work out maintenance grant @6% and arrange to pay the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the petitioner’s educational institution. He further submits that pending consideration of the claim of the petitioner, in compliance of the orders of this Court, the petitioner herein submitted several representations requesting the respondents to grant maintenance grant to the petitioners institution. But the respondents neither considered the said representations nor complied with the orders of this court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present contempt case has been filed at a later stage which is barred by limitation of the Contempt of Courts, Act, 1971. He further submits that once this Court passed orders dated 26.09.2023 to consider the case of the petitioner, to keep the matter alive, even though the petitioner submits representations 4 continuously, to contend that the limitation period for contempt should start afresh or be extended, after receipt of last representation is contrary to the object of the section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 . 5. On perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner, the orders of this Court were served upon the respondents on 18.12.2023. While disposing of the Writ Petition, this Court fixed three (03) months time period to comply with the orders of this Court dated 26.09.2023. If that is so, the order dated 26.09.2023 should be implemented on or before 18.03.2024. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the contempt should be filed within a period of one year from the date when the contemptuous act said to have been committed by the respondents. Therefore, the contempt case should be filed on or before 18.03.2025, but admittedly this contempt case is filed on 20.09.2025 without assigning any reasons for the delay caused in sworn affidavit filed in support of the contempt case. 6. For better understanding Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, is extracted hereunder: <20. Limitation for actions for contempt.4No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.= 7. In view of the reasons stared above and on perusal of the Section 20 of the Act, 1971, the contempt case is not maintainable. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. No order as to costs. 5 Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 25.11.2025 BSP 6 67 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2872/2025 25.11.2025 BBSSPP