APHC010577902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3528/2025 Between: 1. DR. CHENNU PRASAD,, S/O. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. PEDDAPAVALI VILLAGE LINGASAMUDRAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI SHASHI BHUSHAN KUMAR IAS, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI PEEYUSH KUMAR IAS, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. SRI ARUN BABU, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MANAGING DIRECTOR, A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT 4. SRI PERUGU PRASAD, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED NELLORE (OLD PRAKASAM) DISTRICT. 5. SRI P RAJA BABU, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE (OLD 2 PRAKASAM) DISTRICT. 6. SRI VIJAY KUMAR, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. P.R.I. DIVISION, KAVALI (OLD KANDUKUR), NELLORE (OLD PRAKASAM) DISTRICT. 7. SRI K SRINIVASA RAO, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, LINGASAMUDRAM. 8. SRI RASANI VENKATESWARLU, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, THE PEDAPAVANI PANCHAYAT, PEDAPAVANI VILLAGE, LINGASAMUDRAM MANDAL, NELLORE (OLD PRAKASAM) DISTRICT ...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 be pleased to pleased to call the contemnors herein and to punish them under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience and deliberately violating the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 11636 of 2024 dated 23.07.2025 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKAT SAILENDRA G Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3528/2025 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 23.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11636 of 2024. 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 23.07.2025 are not complied with as directed by this Court. The orders dated 23.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11636 of 2024 is extracted hereunder: “In view of the aforesaid directions of this Court in various cases, and after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the Finance Department, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner, without interest. The said amount shall be released within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even though this Court passed a specific order, the respondents have neither released the amount nor taken steps for compliance. He further contends that, failure on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, the 4 respondents are liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this Court passed order on 23.07.2025 directing the respondents to release the amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed in the Writ Petition. Even though this Court passed the order on 23.07.2025, but the certified copy of the order was served upon the respondents on 22.09.2025. Therefore, the period of three months for compliance expires only on 22.12.2025. But the petitioner filed this Contempt Case on 28.10.2025, which is before completion of the stipulated period. As such, this contempt case is not maintainable. 6. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that even though this Court passed orders on 23.07.2025, the certified copy of the order was served upon the respondents on 22.09.2025. The three months period granted by the Court for compliance must be computed from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In the present case on hand, the time period granted by this Court for compliance expires only after 22.12.2025. It is settled law the contempt will arise only when there is willful and deliberate non-compliance after the expiry of the time granted. The present contempt case is filed prior to the expiry of the compliance period. It is further observed that since the petitioner filed a premature contempt case, Sections 10 to 12 does not attract. As such, the contempt case is not maintainable. 5 7. In view of the foresaid reasons, this Contempt Case is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings only after completion of the time stipulated, if the respondents willfully disobeys the order of this Court. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 24.11.2025 TTPPSS 6 229 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3528/2025 24.11.2025 TTPPSS