APHC010362012023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4365/2023 Between: 1. PUJYAM VENKATA SATYA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY, S/O. LATE GOWRIPATHI RAO, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O DO NO 3-38-1, GORSA VILLAGE, U.KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2. RONGALA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA,, S/O. CHELLAIAH, AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O DO NO 2-45/1, GORSA VILLAGE, U.KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 3. MADDLA SUBBARAO,, S/O PADMARAJU AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O 1-38/B, GORSA VILLAGE, U.KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 4. PADALA NARAYANA MURTHY,, S/O. VENKATESWARRAO, AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O DO NO 1-12, GORSA VILLAGE, U.KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 5. ADAPA NAGA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, , S/O. GURRAJU, AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O DO NO 1-21/3, GORSA VILLAGE, U.KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 6. PEDIREDLA VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O CHAKRAM, AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O 1-60, GORSA VILLAGE, U.KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 7. PUJYAM SATISH BABU,, S/O. GOWRIPATHI RAO AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O 3-38, GORSA VILLAGE, U.KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) 2 AND 1. DR KRITHIKA SHUKLA I A S, ADR. KRITHIKA SHUKLA, I.A.S, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA 2. G V S PRASAD, TASILDHAR, U.KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, U.KOTHAPALLI, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 3. G SRINIVAS, SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 4. D V RAMGOPAL, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PITHAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 5. V ABRAHAMLINCON, MANDAL PRAJAPARSHID DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, U KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 6. K VARIJA, SECRETARY, KOMMARAGIRI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOMMARAGIRI VILLAGE, U.KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 7. CHELLUBOINA GOPALA KRISHNA, SO. NOT KNOWN, PANCHYAT SECRETARY, AGED 55 YEARS, KOMARAGIRI GRAM PANCHYAT, U.KOTTAPALLI, MANADAL, KAKINADA DISTRIDT. R 7 IMPLEADEDA AS PER COURT ORDER DT.07.02.2025. VIDE IA NO.1 OF 2024 IN CC NO.4365 OF 2023. 8. KOLA SRINIVAS, S/O. NOT KNOWN, PRESENT SECRETARY, AGED 55 YEARS, KOMARAGIRI GRAM PANCHYAT, U,KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. R 8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DT.07.02.2025, VIDE IA NO.1 OF 2025 IN CC NO.4365 OF 2023 ...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, since the respondents violated the order dated 21-09-2022 in W.P.No. 30834 of 2022 of the Honourable Court, deliberately and intentionally, under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 3 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 may be pleased to implead the proposed Respondent No.7 herein as Respondents No.7 in the C.C No.4365 of 2023 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to implead the proposed Respondent No.? herein as Respondents No.8 in the C.C No.4365 of 2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. P SUBASH 2. KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI 3. S SIVA KUMARI 4. Y KOTESWARA RAO 5. N SRIHARI The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4365/2023 ORDER:- 1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining the alleged willful disobedience in implementing the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.30834 of 2022. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Kommaragiri Gram Panchayat is laying drain pipe line under the Gorsa and U.Kothapalli road and it is letting out the drain water pipe line from Anandanagaram Hamlet, Kommaragiri Village into irrigation canal and petitioners’ lands situated in Gorsa Village, U.Kothapalli Mandal, Kakinada District, without laying the pipe line to let out the drain water into the main drain channel situated towards northern side of the road. The said action of the Kommaragiri Gram Panchayat is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder. As such, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 12.10.2021 to the respondents and also issued a legal notice dated 10.01.2022. Even after receipt of the said representation and legal notice, the respondents neither considered the same nor replied, hence, the petitioners filed this W.P.No.30834 of 2022. 5 4. After hearing both the parties, this Court passed an order in W.P.No.30834 of 2022 dated 21.09.2022 which reads as follows: “Having regard to the contentions submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel, it is deemed fit to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 12.10.2021 and legal notice dated 10.01.2022, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and affected parties, if any, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The orders so passed shall be communicated to the petitioners within a week thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even though this Court passed an order as extracted supra, the respondents did not implement the orders of this Court inspite of receiving the copy of the order of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the respondents being aware about the direction issued by this Court, obviously for reasons best known to them, did not implement the order of this Court which amounts to contempt, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and that the respondent is liable for punishment as per 6 Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and requested this Court to punish them in accordance with law. 7. Respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that, the issue relates to Gram Panchayat Komaragiri of U.Kothapalli Mandal. The petitioners are residents of Gorsa Village. The petitioners in their representation requested the Gram Panchayat not to let the waste water into irrigation channel or into the agricultural fields of the petitioners. The Panchayat Secretary informed that they got surveyed the land in dispute and necessary steps have been taken and arranged soak pits for prevention of letting waste water. The Gram Panchayat proposed for construction of CC drain and estimates were also prepared. But, the irrigation authorities did not grant permission for construction of drain. It is further stated that at present no waste water is being let out into the petitioners’ fields or into the irrigation channel. It is further stated that respondent No.1 issued proceedings dated 18.10.2023 directing the departments concerned to take necessary action. He further prayed that, since there is no deliberate or intentional disobedience on the part of Respondent No.1, requested this Court to close the contempt proceedings against him. 8. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit stating that, the petitioners submitted representation dated 12.10.2021 and also issued legal notice dated 10.01.2022 stating that their crops has been damaging and yielding 7 less quantity due to the drain water is allowing into the pantabodhi i.e., irrigation canal existing on northern side of their fields, therefore, requested not to let out the drainage into the main irrigation canal existing on northern side of the R & B Road at 200 meters distance. It is further stated that a detailed survey has been conducted on 02.01.2023. The survey team demarcated the boundaries of the R & B road including the part of extent under the encroachments of the petitioners by doing peg-mark showing the boundaries to the Panchayat Secretary, Komaragiri for taking necessary action. But, the Panchayat Secretary did not executed the work and the petitioners have sent a legal notice to the respondents. After receipt of the legal notice, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to take necessary action as per the orders of this Court, since the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat alone is competent to execute the construction work by utilizing available budgets in the gram panchayat. The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat in turn addressed a letter dated 01.05.2023 to the respondents stating that the survey report is due from the 2nd respondent for work execution and sent a request to the 2nd respondent to arrange survey team for conducting survey. After receiving the said letter, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the Panchayat Secretary stating that the Panchayat Secretary must be aware of the fact that survey was already conducted and communicated the survey reports. Thereafter, the Panchayat Secretary addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent stating that the drainage construction work is going to be executed from 26.07.2023. He 8 also stated that estimations are generated, but several palm trees are found standing at the proposed site for construction. Therefore, permissions were sought from the Forest Department and District Panchayt Officer are necessary for cutting and auctioning the trees and also requested the irrigation authorities to put the outlet of drainage into the irrigation canal. Based on the same, it is submitted that soak pits were constructed and diverted the drainage water into the soak pits and arrested the water by not letting into the irrigation canal or the agricultural fields of the farmers. He further stated that the 7th respondent and Panchayat Secretary are alone competent to consider the request of the petitioners. 9. Respondent No.5 filed counter-affidavit by reiterating the contentions made in the counter-affidavit of the respondent No.2. Further it is stated that he immediately considered the representation of the petitioner and submitted a letter to the Tahsildar to take action/conduct the survey. As such, there is no intentional or willful disobedience on the part of the respondent No.5 and requested to close the contempt case against him. 10. Respondent No.6 filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that as seen from the survey report, the site is under encroachment by some of the petitioners. Department of Roads and buildings issued a letter dated 30.05.2022 granting permission for construction of the drain. Thereafter, the irrigation department has issued a letter dated 23.08.2023 directing to stop the construction of CC drain and deviate the passage of drain water into the irrigation fields. It is further stated that two soak pits were constructed and 9 diverted the passage of drain into the irrigation canal. Now the soil has been dug and inserted the pipelines in the soil, but there is no leakage of drain water into the petitioners’ land or irrigation canal. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed reply-affidavit to the counter- affidavits, wherein it is stated that the respondents dug soak pits to absorb the drain water. Even though they dug the soak pits, it will not solve the problem of the petitioners as there is no flow of the drain water into the agricultural fields. The drainage water letting into the said soak pits are over flowing and resulting in flowing into petitioners’ fields. No purpose is served by digging the soak pits and letting the drain water into it. The respondent authorities ought to have constructed a drain on either side of the road to enable the drain water let out into the main channel. The petitioners did not encroach the land. If that is so, R & B department might have issued notices to the petitioners. With a view to escape from the contempt proceedings, the respondents are trying to put blame on the petitioners stating that the petitioners occupied the road margin and trying to prevent the construction of the drain. The respondents ought to have taken steps to construct the drain on the northern side of the R & B road. But for the reasons best known to the respondents, they got dug soak pits on the other side of the road, which will not solve the petitioners’ problem. The respondents not complied with the orders of this Court in strict sense. 12. On perusal of the counter affidavits filed by Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5, it appears that, except respondent No.6, remaining all other respondents are no 10 way concerned with implementation of the orders passed by this Court is valid and liable to be accepted. Hence, the contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner against respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7, 8 are liable to be closed. 13. As far as Respondent No.6 is concerned, even though this Court passed an order directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, respondent No.6 did not comply with the order of this court, which, indicates either recklessness towards statutory obligation or disrespect towards the orders of constitutional courts or Rule of Law. 14. When once the authority suffered with an order by this Court, it is the duty of the authorities to implement the same without giving any interpretation and even the order is contrary to law, they are at liberty to file appropriate appeal before the appellate authority. But, without preferring an appeal, the respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and give different meaning to the order passed by this Court, which is sought to be implemented, as directed by this Court. Such an act of the respondent/contemnor is illegal in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah1, wherein, it is held as follows: 31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and 1 (2007) 7 SCC 689 11 implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected. 32. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the Court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the Court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a Court of Law. The Court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The Court, in the circumstances, directs the Authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the Authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he 12 would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is 'no work no pay'. In appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The Court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The Court may in the circumstances, direct the Authority to grant him all benefits considering 'as if he had worked'. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a Court of Law and if such directions are issued by a Court, the Authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant-Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected. 15. The same view is expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others2, where the Court held that, while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier decision if any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or 2 (2004) 7 SCC 261 13 against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. 16. While dealing with an application for contempt, this Court is really concerned with the question as to whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. This Court is primarily concerned with the question of conduct of the party who is alleged to have been committed default in complying with the directions of the judgment/order. If the respondents are under impression that there is an ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the concerned authority/party to approach the Higher Court by way of appeal and he can sought for modification and for suspension and for dismissal. According to him/her the same is not legally tenable and such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the Higher Court. Assuming that a question arose about impossibility of complying with the order, if that was the case, atleast the respondent could have done that and to assail the correctness of the order/judgment before the Higher Court. 14 But, the respondents failed to comply with the order of this Court. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always to be get it clarified either approach the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. 17. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the present facts of the case, this Court can safely conclude that Respondent No.6 – Sri K.Varija, ex facie committed Contempt of Court, as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Act. 18. As discussed above, and in view of the findings recorded by this Court in the above paragraphs, Respondent No.6 – Sri K.Varija, is liable for punishment as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and thereby he punished sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one (01) month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). 19. In the result, contempt case is allowed, directing, Respondent No.6 – Sri K.Varija to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one (01) month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each. 15 20. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 30.12.2025 21. After dictating the above order, learned counsel for Respondent No.6/Contemnor requested this Court to suspend the above order, so as to enable him to prefer an appeal. 22. At request of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.6/ Contemnor, the above order is suspended for a period of six (06) weeks to prefer an appeal. In case no appeal is preferred or no stay is granted by the Appellate Court in the appeal if any preferred, Respondent No.6/Contemnor shall surrender before Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 23.02.2026 before 05.00 p.m to undergo sentence. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 30.12.2025 TPS 16 270 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE No.4365 of 2023 30.12.2025 TPS