IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3209] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE No.349 of 2018 Between: M.Venkateswar Rao, Occ- Civil Engineering Contractor H.No. C-31, 1st Floor, Ravi Dental Hospital, Rukminipuri Colony, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad 500062. … Petitioner AND 1. R.Satish Kumar, The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation CAD Department, Jalasoudha Buildings, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, and another. .… Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.V.Vinod K. Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Irrigation & CAD Mr.Soma Raju Yelisetti The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Mr.Keerthi Prabhaker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Soma Raju Yelisetti, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The present contempt case is filed alleging non-implementation of the orders dated 13.2.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.1470 of 2017. While disposing of the said writ petition, the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation CAD Department was directed to take appropriate action on the representation dated 18.5.2016 submitted by the petitioner, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order. 2 3. As seen from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 dated 17.9.2025, it is discernible that certain action has been initiated, in the light of the representation made by the petitioner and the orders passed in the writ petition. While calling upon for certain details, it appears that the petitioner was also asked to enter into a supplemental agreement. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while making reference to the reply affidavit dated 31.11.2025, made submissions contending that once a supplemental agreement is entered into, the petitioner would be deprived of his rightful claim with regard to the works executed and therefore, the respondent No.2 instead of implementing the order dated 13.2.2017, cannot insist upon the petitioner to enter into a supplemental agreement. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made. Admittedly, there is an attempt on the part of the respondent No.2 to implement the orders of the Court. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a case of willful disobedience. However, there is a delay in implementing the orders of this Court, which cannot be appreciated. Be that as it may. 6. As no orders have been passed considering the representation of the petitioner so far, the Contempt Case is closed, providing that the respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Needless to observe that in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent No.2, it is open to him to work out his remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date: 22.1.2026 vasu