APHC010170782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1235/2025 Between: 1. V.DURGA NAGENDRA PRASAD,, S/O. VAIKUNTAM NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-858, SHANTINAGAR, DHARMAVARAM, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. NATARAJ, TAHSILDAR DHARMAVARAM, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT,A.P 2. YOGESWARI DEVI, PREVIOUSLY WORKED AS TAHSILDAR, DHARMAVARAM, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT,A. P. NOW PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT AT COLLECTOR OFFICE,ANANTHAPUR,ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KRISTAM SAKTHI NIRANJAN GUPTHA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. J DILEEP KUMAR NJS,J C.C No.1235 of 2025 2 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Mr. G Hema Sundar, learned counsel representing on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By an order dated 21.07.2023, this Court disposed of W.P No.18255 of 2023, with a direction to the Tahsildar, Dharmavaram/respondent No.3 in the writ petition to take necessary action on the petitioner’s spandana representation dated 07.03.2022, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, the said representation is not considered so far, as on the date of the order. 3. On the earlier occasion, the learned counsel representing the respondents placed a copy of the endorsement dated 24.04.2025 issued by the Tahsildar-Dharmavaram, rejecting the application of the petitioner, assigning certain reasons. 4. Though, it appears that the said endorsement was sent through Registered Post, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the same was not delivered to the petitioner. However, he states that a copy of the said endorsement was furnished to them by the other side. He also submits that in view of the said rejection, the petitioner would work out remedies, as provided under law. 5. Considering the said submissions and as the cause does not survive for adjudication, this Contempt Case is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedies against the endorsement dated 24.04.2025. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:06.11.2025 Ksj