APHC010029892014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT CASE NO: 893/2014 Between: 1. SRI SAI MASTER CONSTRUCTIONS,, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI N.SATISH , S/O JAGAN MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, DOORNO.20-3071A, BRAHMAPURAM, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI K SUDESH KUMAR, THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA REGION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 2. B HARIKA, THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, VUYYURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. D SRIHARSHA, THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, NUZIVID, KRISHNA 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 under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for wilfully violating the Interim Orders of this Hon'ble High Court passed by the Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court Sri Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy in W.P.M.P.No.46027/2013 in WP No.36989/2013 dt. 3-1-2014 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 2. P DURGA PRASAD 2 The court made the following ORDER: The contempt case has been filed alleging wilful violation of the order dated 03.01.2014, passed in W.P.M.P.No.46027 of 2013 in W.P. No.36989 of 2013. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri K. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the main writ petition itself was dismissed as infructuous vide orders dated 21.11.2024. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is not inclined to pursue the present case. 3. On the other hand, Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, in terms of the interim direction, the 1st respondent had allotted contract works. To substantiate the same, he placed a copy of the proceedings dated 17.05.2014 issued by the 1st respondent. 4. Considering the submissions made and in view of the fact that the interim orders had already been complied with by the respondents, the contempt case is closed by making the proceedings dated 17.05.2014 of the 1st respondent, as part of the record. 5. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 17.03.2026 GVK 3 85 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT CASE No.893 of 2014 Date: 17.03.2026 GVK