APHC010044032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE AT AMARAVATI I THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 299 OF 2025 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 that in the circumstances stated praying in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the contemnors/respondents under the provisions of contempt of the courts Act for wilfully and wantonly violating the order of this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.69670F 2024 dated 02.05.2024 Between: Green Plaza Apartment Owners Welfare Association, D.N0.19-3-33/G Plaza Apartment. G.K.Street, Old Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupathi - Rep. By Its President, Dr.N.Sreeramulu Green 517 501. ...Petitioner AND 1. Shri Ramesh Kumar Suman, Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Amaravathi. 2. Smt N Mourya, Commissioner, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District Department of Development, Secretariat Tirupathi Municipal Corporation > 3. Shaik Abdul Khadar, S/o. Late Ramthu Sahab 33/G, Flat No.501,Green Plaza Apartment, G.K.Street, Old Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupathi - 517 501 Resident of D.No.19-3- ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: VMR LEGAL SRI VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondents.SRI SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: B REDDY // ■ / / / APHC010044032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 299/2025 Between: 1.GREEN PLAZA APARTMENT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION D.N0.19-3-33/G, GREEN PLAZA APARTMENT, G.K.STREET, OLD TIRUCHANOORROAD, TIRUPATHI - 517 501. REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR.N.SREERAMULU ) j ...PETITIONER AND 1.SHRI RAMESH KUMAR SUMAN, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI. 2.SMT N MOURYA, COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT 3.SHAIK ABDUL KHADAR, S/0. LATE RAMTHU SAHAB, RESIDENT OF D.N0.19-3-33/G, FLAT NO.501, GREEN PLAZA APARTMENT, G.K.STREET, OLD TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, TIRUPATHI - 517 501 ...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 contemnors/respondents under the provisions of contempt of the courts Act for wilfully and wantonly violating the order of this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.69670F 2024 dated 02.05.2024 CCMo.299of2025 , lA 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 pleased to dispense with the filling of the certified Copy of the Order dated 02.05.2024 in W.P.No.6967 OF2024 at this stage, pending disposal of the Contempt petition lA NO: 2 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 dispense with the personal appearance of the 2nd respondent on 17-07-2025 in C.C.No. 299 of 2025 and Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VMR LEGAL Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI The Court made the following: ORDER pass Willful disobedience of the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6967 of 2024 is alleged in this Contempt Case. 2. Heard Sri Venkatesh B Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 3. Sri Venkatesh B Reddy, learned counsel, would contend that despite a specific direction given by this Court to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30.08.2023 within a period of eight (08) weeks, as the authorities did not pass any detailed order, this Contempt Case has been filed. C.CMo.299 of2025 3 He would further contend that the respondent filed counter enclosing copy of endorsement, which shows that the petitioner was required to supply copy of the representation, though the same was very much available with them, and moreover the endorsement was passed with an inordinate delay of one year and therefore, there is willful disobedience of the orders of this Court and the endorsement was passed much after filing of the contempt case only to get over the contempt proceedings. Accordingly, prayed to allow the contempt case. 4. Sr/ Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for respondent, would contend that this Court directed the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner of a specific date 30.08.2023 and as the representation furnished by the petitioner did not contain any date, he required by the respondent to furnish copy of the representation . He would further contend that after receiving representation, the petitioner was given opportunity of personal hearing arid the petitioner did never raise any grievance during the course of hearing, however, he resorted to make baseless allegations in the contempt case. He would further contend that no doubt there occurred a delay, which is neither willful nor wanton muchless act of showing disrespect or disobedience to the orders of this Court and the same is purely due to administrative reasons,. which was satisfactorily explained by the respondent in the counter filed. He would further contend was an C.CMo.299 of2025- 4 that there is no disobedience as alleged by the petitioner and this contempt case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Contempt Case. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. This Court directed the respondent corporation to pass a detailed order on the representation made by the petitioner dated 30.08.2023 within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Along with the counter, the respondent filed an endorsement to substantiate that the order of this Court has duly been complied with. The endorsement states that the petitioner was required by the respondent to supply copy of a representation, even though such a copy would already be available with them in the writ record. However, this Court is unable to consider the an act of contempt as projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner. same as 7. Admittedly, the endorsement was not passed within the time stipulated, but had been passed with a considerable delay. Stricto noncompliance of the orders within the time line fixed by a court would amount to contempt. However, the respondent could satisfactory explained the cause for delay besides tendering apologies for not adhering to time line fixed. Accepting the apology and feeling satisfied with the explanation sensu, ^3 C.C.3fo.299 of2025 ‘5 submitted by the respondent for the delay in obeying the orders of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that there is no disobedience of the orders passed by this Court as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, this Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Shri Ramesh Kumar Suman, Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Amaravathi. 2. Smt N Mourya, Commissioner Tirupathi, Tirupathi District Tirupathi Municipal Corporation 3. Shaik Abdul Khadar, S/o. Late Ramthu Sahab, 33/G, Flat No.501 Resident of D.No. 19-3- Green Plaza Apartment, G.K.Street Old Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupathi - 517 501 4. One CC to VMR LEGAL SRI VENKATESH [OPUC] B REDDY, Advocate 5. One CC to SRI. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies NM HIGH COURT DATED:17/07/2025 ORDER CC NO. 299 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE CONTEMPT CASE