APHC010496152024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4228/2024 Between: 1. SMT DEVULLA GEETHA, W/O SOMASEKHAR REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O AT ESWARAWAKA VILLAGE, CHITTAMURU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT, OF FISHERIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 2. SRI T DOLA SHANKAR I O F S, THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, GOVT, OF AP, VIJAYAWADA 3. G RAJESH, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT FISHERIES, GUDUR, TIRUPATI DIST. 4. G RAGHUBABU, THE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KOTA, SPSR NELLORE DIST NOW TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5. SMT TIRUMURU SUMANA, W/O SAI MANOHAR REDDY, AGED 45 YEARS,R/O AT PANDLURU VILLAGE, OZILI POST, NAIDUPETA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 6. SRI RAMASANKAR NAIK, THE COMMISSIONER,FISHERIES DEPARTMENT,PORANKI,BANDAR ROAD,VIJAYAWADA. R 6 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 21/08/25, VIDE IA NO- 1 OF 2025 IN CC NO-4228 OF 2024. 2 ...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 punish the respondent N0.4 herein under sec. 10 and 12 of contempt of courts Act as the respondents 2 to 4 herein who have deliberately, intentionally and wilfully violated/disobey and flouting the Orders dt. 20-10-2023 passed by this Honble Court in WP No.27714 of 2023 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 may be pleased to implead the proposed 6th respondent who is proper and necessary party respondent NO.6 in the above contempt case as the 2nd respondent officer was already transferred and Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. I K ANNAPURNA 2. B P RAJU 3. 4. BH RAMA KRISHNA NAIK The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4228/2024 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 20.10.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27714 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 the unofficial respondent No.5 is doing aqua culture illegally without there being any license and contrary to law, against which the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.10.2023 to respondent Nos.2 to 4 requesting to consider the representation and to stop the illegal aqua culture activities of unofficial respondent No.5. Even after receipt of the representation, the respondents neither considered the representation nor initiated any action against the illegal aqua culture activities of respondent No.5. Hence, the petitioner herein filed writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after hearing the matter, this Court was pleased to pass an order directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. He further submits that even though the copy of the order of this Court was received by respondent Nos.2 to 4, they neither considered the representation nor stopped the illegal aqua culture activities of unofficial respondent No.5. Hence, the contempt case. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6 filed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No.6, wherein it is stated that after receipt of copy of order of this Court, the respondents conducted enquiry. Basing upon the enquiry report, the District Fisheries Officer passed a speaking order dated 15.11.2024 considering the representation of the petitioner and disposed of the same stating that the representation of the petitioner itself become infructuous for the reason that pending the adjudication of the contempt case, the respondents granted license to the unofficial respondent No.5 in view of the new policy was formulated by respondent No.1. Therefore, the order of this Court is complied with in all respects. 6. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, to determine whether any contempt is there or not, it is appropriate to extract the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27714 of 2023 hereunder: “Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of, directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 02.10.2023 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5 7. On perusal of the order passed by this Court, it is observed that the order passed by this Court is simplicitor directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.10.2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In the case on hand, after receipt of the copy of order of this Court, the respondents conducted detailed enquiry and had a detailed report. Basing upon the enquiry report, the District Fisheries Officer passed a speaking order stating that the grievance/claim of the petitioner could not be considered, in view of permanent license granted in favour of the unofficial respondent No.5 due to change of policy by respondent No.1. Once license is granted, the aqua activities of respondent No.5 cannot be called as illegal activities. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be enforced and accordingly, the representation was disposed of. 8. In view of the disposal of the representation as directed by this Court, the order of this Court was complied with in all respects. Hence, there is no violation or deviation of the orders of this Court as alleged by the petitioner and the petitioner not made out contempt case. Hence, the contempt case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 08.12.2025 TTPPSS 6 58 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4228/2024 08.12.2025 TTPPSS