APHC010467392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2431/2025 Between: 1.C. NAGA RAJU, S/O. RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, A.R. POLICE CONSTABLE 06, PALNADU DISTRICT. 2.MD. KHASIM, S/O. ABDUL ALLAM, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, A.R. POLICE CONSTABLE 25, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3.K. MANOJ KUMAR, S/O. VENKATESWARAO, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, A.R. POLICE CONSTABLE 41, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4.P.BALA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, A.R. POLICE CONSTABLE NO. 66, PALNADU DISTRICT. 5.D.RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. KALYANA SRINIVAS REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, A.R. POLICE CONSTABLE 55, PALNADU DISTRICT. 6.ARUNA JYOTHI, D/O. SESHA RAO, AGED 25 YEARS, A.R. WOMEN POLICE CONSTABLE 367, PALNADU DISTRICT. 7.K.KAMALA, D/O. RATNAM, AGED 21 YEEIRS, A.R. WOMEN POLICE CONSTABLE 361, PALNADU DISTRICT. 8.B.NARAYANAMMA, D/O. B.KRISHNA RAO, AGED 33 YEARS, A.R. WOMEN POLICE CONSTABLE 372, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.G HARISH KUMAR GUPTA IPS, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.SRI SARVASHRESHTH TRIPATHI IPS, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGE NOT KNOWN, OCC INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GUNTUR RANGE. 3. 3.SRI KANEHI SRINIVASA RAO IPS, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGE 2 NOT KNOWN, OCC THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARASARAOPETA. ...CONTEMNOR(S): The court made the following ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present Contempt Case is filed against the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience and violation of the order of this Court dated 03.04.2023 in W.P. No.8230 of 2023. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though this Court had specifically directed respondent No.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner, acknowledged on 21.03.2023, and dispose of the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, in terms of the order dated 16.03.2023 passed in W.P. No.6514 of 2023, the respondents have neither considered the said representation nor passed any speaking order thereon till date. Hence, the present Contempt Case. 4. Hence, the present Contempt Case. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been continuously submitting representations one after another, requesting compliance 3 with the order of this Court, but the respondents have remained static/inactive and failed to dispose of the same. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file this contempt petition. 5. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, prescribes the limitation for initiating contempt proceedings and reads as follows: “No court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.” 6. On perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the present contempt case was filed before the Registry on 03.09.2025. As per the scheme of the Act, initiation of contempt proceedings beyond the period prescribed under Section 20 is barred by limitation. 7. A perusal of the said provision makes it clear that no Court shall initiate contempt proceedings after one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In the present case, the alleged contempt is stated to have been committed on 28.05.2023, as the respondents are said to have 4 received a copy of the order dated 13.04.2023, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted another representation on 03.08.2023, requesting the respondents to comply with the order of this Court. Even assuming, as contended by the petitioner, that the alleged contempt was committed after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from 28.08.2023, the contempt petition ought to have been filed within one year therefrom, i.e., on or before 29.08.2024. 8. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner submitted another representation on 10.08.2025, which is beyond one year from the date of the earlier representation. Hence, from the above chronology of events, it is evident that the petitioner failed to initiate contempt proceedings within the period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 9. It is a settled position of law that when the statute mandates invocation of the jurisdiction of the Court within a specific period of limitation, the same cannot be extended by the Court under the guise that the order of this Court has not been complied with, contrary to the express provisions of law. 5 10. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to hold that the present contempt case is not maintainable under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the contempt case is hereby closed. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 31.10.2025 klk klk 6 269 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No. 2431 of 2025 06.11.2025 klk klk