APHC010020492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 117/2025 Between: 1. PASUPULETI SIVALEELA, W/O. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. VOA OF BHARATI GRAMA SANGHAM RESIDENT OF H.NO. 11-15, PEDDAKURAPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BALU NAIK, PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (DRDA), VELUGU, PALNADU DISTRICT, NARASARAOPET. 2. SMT BOBBA SUNITHA DEVI, ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER (APM) YSR KRANTHIPATAM (VELUGU) MAHILA MANDAL, SAMIKYA, PEDDAKURAPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. SRI KATTEPOGU PRASAD, COMMUNITY CO-ORDINATOR, PEDDAKURAPADU, PEDDAKURAPADU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...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 punish the Respondents herein under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willfully and wantonly disobedience of the Orders passed by this Honourable Court in WP No. 20133 of 2024, dated 2 18.09.2024 delivered by his Lordship the Hon'ble Sri Justice SUBBA REDDY SATTI and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGENDRA BABU PARAGATI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. HARI BABU MAGULURI SC For SERP The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri Nagendra Babu Paragati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hari Babu Maguluri, learned Standing for respondents. 2. The above contempt case was filed complaining of the violation of the order dated 18.09.2024, passed in W.P.No.20133 of 2024. 3. The petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition seeking to declare the action of respondents 3 to 6 in the writ petition, in not allowing the petitioner to discharge her duties as Village Organisation Assistant (VOA) in Bharati Grama Sangham of Peddakurapadu Village, Peddakurapadu Mandal, Palnadu District. 4. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing respondents 3 to 6 not to interfere with the petitioner’s discharge of duties as Village Organisation Assistant. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was specifically pleaded that the respondents have violated the order dated 18.09.2024. 6. A counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents. In para-10 of the counter affidavit, it was specifically pleaded that the respondents are not interfering with the petitioner’s discharge of duties as Village Organisation Assistant (VOA). 7. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner disputing the same. 3 8. Thus, as seen from the record, the respondents are not interfering with the petitioner’s discharge duties as VOA. Given the facts and circumstances, the contention of the petitioner regarding the alleged violation doesn’t arise, and the contempt case stands closed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 21.11.2025 SNI 4 208 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO:117/2025 Date: 21.11.2025 SNI