Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9560 (AP)

P MADHUSUDHAN REDDY v. S AJAY KUMAR IAS

CC/643/2025 · 2025-06-17

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010105912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 643/2025 Between: P Madhusudhan Reddy ...PETITIONER AND S Ajay Kumar Ias and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 2. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO:643/2025 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 02.12.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5677 of 2021. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is observed from the record that the subject contempt case is filed after lapse of two years. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, any contempt case alleging the disobedience or violation of the orders of this Court should be challenged within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4. For understanding Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is extracted hereunder: 20. Limitation for actions for contempt.— No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 5. Admittedly in the present case, the contempt case is filed after lapse of two (02) years from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Therefore, filing of the contempt case is contrary to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the present contempt case is not maintainable and liable to be closed. 6. In view of the reasons stated above, the present contempt case is closed as not maintainable. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 18.06.2025 BSP 118 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No.643 of 2025 18.06.2025 BSP