APHC010083152025 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: 534/2025 Between: 1. G. BHARATHI, W/O. VEMANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC SANGAMITHRA R/O. 15-10, GURIKANIPALLI, BADIKAYALAPALLI POST, B.KOTHAKOTA MANDAL, ANNAMMAYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Y RAJESWARI, THE ASSISTANT PROJECT MANGER, YSR KRANTHI PATAM (VELUGU) MAHILA MANDAL, SAMIKYA, B.KOTHA KOTA MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 2. Y ARUNAMMA, THE MANDAL SAMAIKYA COMMUNITY, CO- ORDINATOR, B.KOTHA KOTA MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA 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 respondents herein under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contemptof Courts Act, 1971 for their willful, deliberate and intentional violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court, dated 18.09.2024 made in W.P.No.16712 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. HARI BABU MAGULURI SC For SERP The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: 1. The above contempt case is filed complaining about the violation of the order dated 18.09.2024 in W.P.No.16712 of 2024. 2. The petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition complaining of the interference of respondents 3 to 6 therein and not allowing the petitioner to discharge her duties as Sangamitra (Village Organisation Assistant), Badikayalapalli Village, Organisation-4, B. Kotha Kota Mandal, Annamayya District, without assigning any reasons. 3. The writ petition was disposed of, directing respondents 3 to 6 therein not to interfere with the petitioner’s discharging duties as Sangamithra /VOA in Badikayalapalli Village, Organisation-4, B. Kotha Kota Mandal, Annamayya District. 4. The above contempt case was filed on 17.02.2025. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was specifically pleaded that after the order was passed by this court, the petitioner made a representation dated 01.10.2024, bringing to the notice of the respondents the order dated 18.09.2024, and later issued a legal notice dated 03.12.2024. Despite the same respondents are interfering with the petitioner’s discharging duties as Sangamitra, in the month of December 2024. It is also pleaded that the respondents submitted a letter to the Bank Manager, Indian Bank and Sapthagiri Gramina Bank, with a request not to accept deposits submitted by the petitioner, and the petitioner has not been paid salary for the past nine months. 5. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit. It was contended that by resolution dated 16.07.2024, the petitioner was removed as VOA and one Smt. M. Revathi, W/o Srinivasulu, is elected as VOA of the society. A copy of the resolution was also annexed to the counter affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a reply, annexing a letter addressed by the Assistant Project Manager, DRDA, B. Kotha Kota Mandal, Annamayya District, to the petitioner stating that the staff would not interfere with the petitioner’s discharging duties. 7. Heard Sri D. Vignesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hari Babu Maguluri, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that had the petitioner not discharged duties as VOA, the Assistant Project Manager would not have addressed such a letter to the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that, it is a general letter, stating that the authorities are not interfering with the duties of VOAs, which was issued to all the petitioners in respective writ petitions, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. 10. Whether the resolution dated 16.07.2024, passed by the General Body of Badikayalapalli Village, Organisation-4, B. Kotha Kota Mandal, Annamayya District, removing the petitioner as VOA and appointing Smt. M. Revathi, as VOA, was ante-dated or whether it was passed in accordance with circular orders, in the considered opinion of this Court, is beyond the scope of the contempt jurisdiction. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner needs to challenge the resolution dated 16.07.2024, passed by the members of the society, before the appropriate forum. 11. Since the material available on record demonstrates that the petitioner was removed as VOA by resolution dated 16.07.2024, the question of the respondents violating the order dated 18.09.2024 does not arise. The order passed in the writ petition was not violated. 12. Hence, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 21.11.2025 IKN