APHC010077432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 470/2025 Between: 1. M/S. THE INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD,, 502C, 5TH FLOOR, LINGAPUR HOUSE, 3-6-237, AMRUTHA ESTATES, HIMAYATH NAGAR, HYDERABAD - 500029. REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, M. RAJENDRA PRASAD ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI V SUDHIR KRUPANAND, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, APSIDC CIRCLE, KADAPA - KURNOOL HIGHWAY, BESIDE BIG CATHOLIC CHURCH, MARIYAPURAM, KADAPA - 516 003. 2. SRI J VENU GOPAL, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APSIDC DIVISION OFFICE, KURNOOL DIVISION, BESIDE CIVIL SUPPLIES GODOWN, CHANAKYAPURI COLONY, KURNOOL - 518 004. 3. SRI C S SWAMI SEKHAR, THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, WORKS ACCOUNT, 1ST FLOOR, KSR COMPLEX, OPP EIDGAH, BELLARY ROAD, KURNOOL, KURNOOL 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 pleased to punish the respondent herein for the willful, deliberate and wanton violation of the orders Dt.20.09.2023 of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.No.3154/2021 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 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 filing of the copy of the order Dt.20.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.3154/2021 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V S K RAMA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. . The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 470/2025 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Contempt Case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 20.09.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3154 of 2021 3. After hearing the matter, this Court was pleased to pass an order dated 20.09.2023 in W.P.No.3154 of 2021, which is extracted hereunder: “16. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: a. The respondents shall verify the bills of the petitioners and if the corresponding amount is included in the estimates, the respondents can deduct amount as prescribed at the rate of 1% towards Labour Cess. b. Upon verification, if the respondents found that the corresponding amount is not included in the estimates, the respondent shall not take steps to deduct the amount/recover the amount from the petitioners towards Labour Cess.” 4. On perusal of the order of this Court, it is clear and categorical that this Court directed the respondents, if the estimate labour cess @ 1% is included in the estimates of contract value while awarding the contract the respondents are entitled to deduct 1% labour cess from the bills of the petitioner. It is further directed that in the absence of inclusion of 1% labour cess in the work 4 estimates/contract value, the respondents are restrained from deductions as well as recovery from the payment of bills of the petitioners. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled either to deduct or to recover, if the 1% labour cess was not included in the work estimates/contract value. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entrusted subject contract work in the year 2012 vide agreement No.39/11-12 dated 28.02.2012. The petitioner had commenced the work and completed the work at the total value is Rs.22,17,85,378/-. Even though this Court specifically directed not to recover amount towards labour cess @ 1%, but the respondents violated the order of this Court. 6. After verifying the facts which are narrated in the contempt case, the order passed by this Court is on 20.09.2023, but contempt case is filed on 13.02.2025 i.e., after lapse of more than one year. It is further observed that the direction of this Court is in prospective manner directing the respondents not to deduct/not to recover from the date of order. The case of the petitioner appears to be that the amounts were already deducted before filing the Writ Petition, but the same was not brought to the notice of this Court by praying such relief. In the absence of any specific direction of this Court for refund of the amount, which was already recovered, this Court cannot enforce the contempt proceedings against the respondents as requested by the petitioner. 7. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court cannot enforce the contempt proceedings in the absence of any specific direction as prayed by the petitioner. Admittedly the present contempt case is filed after lapse of one year, 5 which is contrary to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion, the present Contempt Case is not within Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act and it cannot be proceeded to punish under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 23.10.2025 TTPPSS 6 45 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 470/2025 23.10.2025 TTPPSS