1 APHC010129282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 800/2025 Between: 1. M. REVATHI,, W/O POTHARAJU RAJULAPATI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (TECH) AP II ATP, O/O COMMISSIONER, CADA (COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY), HANUMAN PETA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. R/O G.102, SAMHITHA SPLENDID HOMES, SUNDARAYYA NAGAR, TADEPALLI - 522501, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MR G SAI PRASAD, THE COMMISSIONER, CADA, (COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY), HANUMANPETA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 2. MR T V N A RATNA KUMAR, THE ENGINEER - IN -CHIEF (ADMN), WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ANDHRAPRADESH, VIJAYAWADA NTR 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 may be pleased to summon the respondents and punish them for their wilful disobedience in implementing the order passed in WP No. 1641/2025 dated 24.1.2025 under the Provisions of Sec. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. A SREEDHAR Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above contempt case was filed complaining about the violation of the order dated 24.01.2025 in W.P.No.1641 of 2025. 2. The petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition to declare the action of respondents in not considering her case for promotion to the post of Superintendant of Engineer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, as illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition was disposed of. The operative portion of the order is as follows:- “6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Superintendent Engineer, strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, if the petitioner’s candidature is in the zone of consideration whenever DPC is constituted.” 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was pleaded that the petitioner made a representation dated 26.01.2025. The 2nd respondent issued Memo No.RC/ENC/V2/WP1641/2025 dated 05.02.2025, rejecting claim of the petitioner, stating that there was stay order in W.P.No.9993 of 2020 dated 17.06.2020. 4. A reply was filed by the 2nd respondent. Sri K.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that a speaking order was passed on 05.02.2025. It is further submitted that no DPC was conducted due to the stay order in W.P.No.9993 of 2020 dated 17.06.2020. Learned counsel 3 would contend that the order dated 24.01.2025 in W.P.No.1641 of 2025 has not been violated. 5. A perusal of the memo dated 05.02.2025 filed along with contempt case, as well as the reply filed by the 2nd respondent, it is evident that the 2nd respondent passed a speaking order in pursuance of the order dated 24.01.2025 in W.P.No.1641 of 2025. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order dated 05.02.2025, the petitioner has to challenge the proceedings before the appropriate authority. 6. In J.S.Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Others1, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “….once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. …” [ 7. A perusal of memo issued by the 2nd respondent vide Memo.No.RC/ENC/V2/WP1641/2025 dated 05.02.2025, in view of the speaking order, this Court does not find any violation of order dated 24.01.2025 in W.P.No.1641 of 2025. 1 (1996) 6 SCC 291 4 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 26.12.2025 JLV 5 89 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 800/2025 Date: 26.12.2025 JLV