APHC010016972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 150/2026 Between: 1. R AND R INFRA TECH INDIA PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Y V RAVINDRA REDDY, S/O Y RAMI REDDY, AGE 45 YEARS, PLOT NO 74, 2ND FLOOR, SBI ATM BUILDING, MIG1, SECTOR II, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. G SAI PRASAD IAS, PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AP SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI - 523 238. 2. SRI PEEYUSH KUMAR IAS, PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AP SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI - 523 238. 3. SRI S SUDHAKAR, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K W DIVISION TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 201. 4. SRI SK JAKEER AHAMED, THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WESTERN SUB DIVISION BAPATLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 102. 5. SRI G VENKATA RAMANA, THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SECTION NO 5 CHEBROLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 212. ...CONTEMNOR(S): 2 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 above contemnors / respondents under the provisions of contempt of courts Act, for their wilfully disobeying the orders of Hon'ble Sri. Justice VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA issued in WP No. 16374 of 2023 Dt.01-11-2023 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 150 OF 2026 ORDER: The contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 01.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16374 of 2023. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present contempt case is filed alleging that orders dated 01.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16374 of 2023 are not complied with as directed by this Court. 4. The present contempt case has been filed after expiry of one year from the date of alleged contempt. 5. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the contempt is started within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt alleged to have been committed and the contempt should be filed within a period of one year from the date when the contemptuous act said to have been committed by the respondents. Admittedly, this Contempt has been filed after expiry of one year from the date of alleged contempt. 4 6. For better understanding, Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides as under: “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”. 7. In S.Tirupathi Rao v. M.Lingamaiah1 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated. It was further held that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the High Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed and held that the express negative phraseology used in Section 20 of the Contempt Courts Act, as a legislative injunction, places a fetter on the Court’s power to initiate proceedings for contempt unless the petition/application is presented within the time-frame stipulated therein. 8. Para Nos. 53 & 54 in S.Tirupathi Rao (supra) read as under: “53. Reverting to the point of limitation, even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court. The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1764 5 meaning thereby, as laid down in Pallav Sheth (supra), that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the high court. 54. An action for contempt - though instituted through a petition or an application - is essentially in the nature of original proceedings, as held by this Court in High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Raj Kishore Yadav {(1997) 3 SCC 11); a fortiori, a prayer for condonation of delay in presenting the petition/application alleging contempt would not be maintainable. The express negative phraseology used in section 20 of the Act, as a legislative injunction, places a fetter on the court's power to initiate proceedings for contempt unless the petition/application is presented within the time-frame stipulated therein. However, since section 20 also uses the expression “date on which the contempt is alleged to be committed” as the starting point of the period of one year to be counted for reckoning whether the petition/application has been presented within the stipulated period, the high courts ought to be wary of crafty and skilful drafting of petitions/applications to overcome the delay in presentation thereof.” 9. Admittedly, this Contempt Case is filed beyond the period of one year limitation. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable. 10. Accordingly, the contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 6 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 18.03.2026 BBSSPP 7 146 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 150 OF 2026 18.03.2026 BBSSPP