APHC010119032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 796/2025 Between: 1. K MURALI KRISHNA, S/O K. KASI VISWANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. NUZENDLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRIET. ...PETITIONER AND 1. R RAJA NAYAK, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS PALNADU DISTRICT. 2. PD AZARATTAYA, , THE EXEEUTIVE ENGINEER, NARASARAOPET DIVI SION ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPT NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRIET 3. KANEHETI NAVYA, JUNIOR ENGINEER ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPT, VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT 4. B VENKATESHWARLU, , DIVISIONAL ENGINEER ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPT VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISCT 5. S BRAMMA REDDY, THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARASARAOPET DIVISION ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPT, NRT PALNADU DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR(S): 2 The court made the following ORDER: 1. 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 Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 23896 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though this Court specifically directed that status quo as on the date of the order shall be maintained, the respondents have violated the said direction and thereby committed contempt, liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that even at the time of passing the order dated 22.10.2024, this Court had taken note of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that the subject land is vested with the Government, that the respondents had already constructed a hospital in the said land, and as such the entire construction, including the compound wall, had been completed even prior to the filing of the writ petition. It is therefore contended that after the 3 grant of status quo order, no further construction was undertaken, and hence there was neither violation nor disobedience of the orders of this Court. 5. In order to determine the issue of contempt, it is necessary to refer to the operative portion of the interim order of this Court. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents had submitted that the respondents were constructing a hospital within Government land and were not encroaching upon the petitioner’s land. It was further submitted that the entire compound wall was already completed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted upon interim relief. Accordingly, this Court directed both parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on that day for a period of two weeks. 6. On perusal of the interim order dated 22.10.2024, it is evident that this Court had clearly and categorically recorded the submissions of the respondents that the construction of the hospital, including the compound wall, was already completed by that time when the writ petition was filed. It is not the case of the petitioner that any construction was carried out after the grant of status quo order. No material or evidence has been placed before 4 this Court to show that the respondents undertook any further construction in violation of the Court’s direction. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition, the petitioner did not furnish any specific particulars, dates, or details of alleged constructions if any made subsequent to the order. 7. In the absence of any cogent material demonstrating the violation of the order of this Court, this Court is unable to hold that the respondents have committed any act of willful disobedience or deviation to the order. Therefore the petitioner did not made out any case of contempt. Accordingly, this Court held that no contempt is made out. 8. In view of the reasons stated above, the Contempt Case is closed, as this Court does not find any violation of the order dated 22.10.2024. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 31.10.2025 kkllkk 5 309 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No. 796 of 2025 31.10.2025 kkllkk 6