::1:: APHC010467542024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4091/2024 Between: 1. T SUNITHA, D/O. OBULA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.13/20-1, APPAKONDAIAHGARI PALLE, LAKKIREDDIPALLE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT - 516 257. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI BUDHI RAJSEKHAR IAS, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI S DILLI RAO I A S, DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, OLD MIRCHI YARD, NALLAPADU ROAD, CHUTTUGUNTA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR 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 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for their willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by ::2:: the Honble High Court in W.P.No.3463 of 2023, dated 13.02.2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y MAHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA ::3:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.C.No.4091 of 2024 This Court made the following ORDER: 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 13.02.2023 in W.P. No.3463 of 2023. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though this Court had specifically directed respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08.05.2023, 07.06.2023, 10.09.2023 and 12.12.2023, and dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, in terms of the order dated 22.08.2022 passed in W.P. No. 11229 of 2022, the respondents have neither considered the said ::4:: representation nor passed any speaking order thereon till date. Hence, the present Contempt Case. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been continuously submitting representations one after another, requesting compliance 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 22.10.2024. As per the scheme of the Act, initiation of contempt proceedings beyond the period prescribed under Section 20 is barred by limitation. ::5:: 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 08.05.2023, as the respondents are said to have received a copy of the order dated 13.02.2023, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted other representations on 07.06.2023, 10.09.2023 and 12.12.2023, requesting the respondents to comply with the order of this Court. 8. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner submitted other representations on 06.09.2024 and 01.10.2024, which are beyond one year from the date of the earlier representations. 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 ::6:: Court under the guise that the order of this Court has not been complied with, contrary to the express provisions of law. 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 DT: 07.11.2025 krk ::7:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.C.No.4091 of 2024 DT: 07.11.2025 krk 335