APHC010509352024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE No.4306 of 2024 Between: M/s Sony Grand INN, rep. by its Prop. P.Bala S/o P.Palyam, aged about 44 years, D.No.15-94/1, Grace Avenue Apartment, Panchali Nagar, Renigunta, Tirupati District. … Petitioner AND 1. Sri Abhishek Kishore, Vice Chairman and Managing Director, The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 2. I L Ram, Chief General Manager, APIIC Limited, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. Sri J Chandra Sekhar, Zonal Manager, APIIC, Limited, B-Block, 7th Floor, Collector's Office, Tirupati, Tirupati District. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.K.Mohan Rami Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Rama Chandra Rao Gurram The Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Rama Chandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The Contempt Case is filed alleging non-implementation of the orders dated 23.4.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.9171 of 2024, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: 2 CC_4306_2024 In the light of the submissions made, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take necessary action on the petitioner’s request, in the light of the endorsement of the 1st respondent dated 12.2.2024, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall not allot the subject matter plot to any third party. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that after filing of the Contempt Case, the request of the petitioner is rejected vide Proceedings dated 16.12.2024 and the delay in issuing the said Proceedings itself fortifies the contention that the respondents are liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. He also contends that in fact the said Proceedings are not in tune with G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 05.2.2022. Making the said submissions, learned counsel urges for imposing punishment for violation of the orders of the Court, as per the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.4(j) and 7 of the counter affidavit, made submissions. He submits that after detailed examination of the petitioner’s request, the Proceedings dated 16.12.2024, which are self- explanatory, have been issued. He also submits that as Plot No.3A is an industrial plot and kept for industrial activity to promote industries, generate employment, it was decided not to allot the said plot for commercial activities like Hotels, Restaurants, Motels etc., and at present, the said plot is kept vacant. 5. Considering the said submissions, more particularly on the basis of the specific averments made in the counter affidavit to which no reply affidavit is filed, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for punishing the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. 3 CC_4306_2024 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the Proceedings dated 16.12.2024, needless to observe that it is open to him to work out his remedies against the same, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J November 13, 2025. vasu