Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51742 (AP)

M/s. Sri Dharma Shasta Contractors v. Sri N Devan Reddy

CC/6217/2023 · 2025-05-01

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6217 OF 2023 Contempt Case U/s 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 The Respondents herein for wilfully violating and disobeying the Orders of The High Court dated 19.06.2023 in W.P. No. 12752 of 2023. Between: M/s. Sri Dharma Shasta Contractors, Rep, by its Partner M. Kiran Kumar Reddy Aged 25 years, Occ: Contractor, 0/o.D.No. Bhaunumukkala Village. Banaganapalli (M), Nandyal/Kumool District F<nli to Punish 18/91, Kondapeta, ...PETITIONER AND 1. Sri N Devan Reddy, The State of Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, o/O. d.No.796, Sri Sai Fortune Heights, Vaddeswaram, Guntur District 2. S.S.Rawa^ I.A.S., S/o Father's name not known to petitioner Principal Secretary, Department of Finance and Planning, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 3. N. Nageswar Rao, The Superintendent of Engineer, APEWIDC,Kumool, Kumool District. 4. Dr. G Srijana I.A.S., District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District 5. M. Laxminarayana, The Executive Engineer(l/C), APEWIDC,Kurnoo l, Kurnool District. Contemptor are Respondent No.2 to 5, in W.P. No. 12752 of 2023) ...CONTEMNORS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the PetitionerSRI. D SESHASAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :SRI V CH NAIDU .Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI C SUMON *^Cou^sel for the Respondents: SRI BALASWAMY he Court made the following: ORDER V- 1 if i 5. t. a-7' v. n 1 I APHC010569182023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] IV" Ti'^ "• s-feS FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6217/2023 Between: M/s. Sri ©harma Shasta Contractors ...PETITIONER AND ...CONTEMNOR(S) Sri N Devan Reddy and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.D SESHASAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.T BALASWAMI 2.VCH NAIDU 3.C SUMON The Court made the following order: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12752 of 2023. Sri K.Raghu Babu, learned counsel representing Sri D.Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent ■'im authorities have complied with the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by this No.12752 of 2023, hence, no further orders are required jf Court in Writ Petition to be passed in the Contempt Case. Recording the said submission, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Contempt Case, shall stand closed. / SD/- M SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Sri N Devan Reddy, Managing Director Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, o/O. d.No.796, Sri Sai Fortune Heights, Vaddeswaram, Guntur District 2. Sri S.S.Rawat, I.A.S., Principal Secretary, Department of Finance and Planning, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 3. Sri N. Nageswar Rao, The Superintendent of Engineer, APEWIDC, Kumool, Kumool District. 4. Dr. G Srijana I.A.S., District Collector, Kumool, Kumool District 5. Sri M. Laxminarayana, The Executive Engineer(l/C), APEWIDC, Kumool, Kumool District. 6. One CC to SRI. D SESHASAYANA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI BALASWAMY, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI. V CH NAIDU, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI C SUMON, Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 10. PRK <¥> HIGH COURT DATE0:02/05/2025 ORDER CC.No.6217 of 2023 0 7 AUG 2025 i rrentSectJQivXj PAT CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS