1 APHC010240822024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2614/2024 Between: 1. KOTHAPALLI RAMALAKSHMI, D/O K.APPA RAO, AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O H.NO.4-156, BALAJI NAGAR, S.KOTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI N KRISHNA MURTHY, Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Division Office at Vidyuth Bhavan, 1st Floor, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ...CONTEMNOR 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 for his willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Honourable court in WP.No.23837 of 2023 dated 17-10-2023 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAUSHIK KUMBHAJADALA Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful, wanton and deliberate disobedience in implementation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.23837 of 2023 on 17.10.2023. 2. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petition aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not extending the family pension to the petitioner, wherein this Court passed the following order: “…In view of the above, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the 3rd respondent/Executive Engineer to consider the case of the petitioner for extension of family pension and pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner, dated 16.09.2023, duly taking into consideration of the no objection affidavits submitted by the sisters of the petitioner as well as keeping in mind the letter addressed by the Tahsildar to the 3rd respondent on 15.12.2022 within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 3. Heard Sri. K. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. K. Aishwarya Chowdary, learned counsel representing Sri. V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Mrs. K. Aishwarya Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has furnished a copy of the speaking orders passed by the respondent herein on 06.01.2024 wherein, the request made by the petitioner vide representation dated 16.09.2023 was rejected. 3 5. In view of the fact that the pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 17.10.2023, the respondent herein has considered the representation submitted by the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 06.01.2024, this Court is of the opinion that no contempt lies as against the respondent. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 06.01.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 21.11.2025 Gss