APHC010135442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 886/2025 Between: 1. N GEETHA RANI, W/O N.SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YRS, OCC. WORKING AS VOA-2, (VILLAGE ORGANIZATION ASSISTANT- 2) R/O BOMMAYYAGARI PALLI VILLAGE, BOMMAYYAGARI PALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, ROMPICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. S.SUBHADRA, W/O S.RAMAKRISHNA , AGED ABOUT 37 YRS, OCC. WORKING AS VOA-1, (VILLAGE ORGANIZATION ASSISTANT- 1) R/O CHICHILIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, CHICHILIVARIPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT ROMPICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. K.GEETHA, W/O S.PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 56 YRS, OCC. WORKING AS VOA-5, (VILLAGE ORGANIZATION ASSISTANT-5) R/O ROMPICHERLA VILLAGE, ROMPICHERLA GRAM PANCHAYAT ROMPICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT . 4. M.SUDHA RANI, W/O M.REDDY CHENNAPPA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YRS, OCC. WORKING AS VOA-2, (VILLAGE ORGANIZATION ASSISTANT-2) R/O BODIPATIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, BODIPATIVARIPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, ROMPICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. Page 2 of 5 SRS,J C.C.No.886 of 2025 5. G.SUMATHI, W/O G.VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 49 YRS, OCC. WORKING AS VOA-2, (VILLAGE ORGANIZATION ASSISTANT- 2) R/O BANDAKINDAPALLI VILLAGE, BANDAKINDAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, ROMPICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. B SRIDEVI, W/O NOT KNOWN. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. PROJECT DIRECTOR, THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DRDA, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. A HARINATH, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. AREA COORDINATOR THE AREA COORDINATOR, SERF, ROMPICHERLA, ROMPICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. Y RAGHUNADHA REDDY, S/O NOT KNOWN. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC.CLUSTER COORDINATOR THE CLUSTER COORDINATOR, SERF, ROMPICHERLA, ROMPICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 herein under sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for flouting the orders and disobedience to implement the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.F.No.22497 of 2024, dated 14.10.2024 deliberately and intentionally, 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 pleased to direct the respondents to implement the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.F.No.22497 of 2024, dated 14.10.2024 forthwith, pending disposal of the above Contempt Case, and pass p. 3 SRS,J C.C.No.886 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAJENDRA BUSSA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. HARI BABU MAGULURI SC For SERP The Court made the following: :ORDER: The above contempt case was filed on 17.03.2025, complaining of the violation of the order, dated 14.12.2024, in W.P.No.22497 of 2024. 2. The petitioners and others filed the above writ petition complaining of the interference of the respondent authorities in discharging their duties as VOAs of the respective societies. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14.10.2024, directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners’ discharging duties as VOAs of their respective societies. Petitioners filed the above contempt case pleading violation of the order dated 14.10.2024. 3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2, wherein it was mentioned that the respondent societies passed resolutions, dated 12.12.2024, 09.11.2024, 07.12.2024, 03.12.2024 and 09.12.2024, respectively, electing new persons as VOAs. None of the petitioners, by the date of filing of the contempt case, has been discharging duties as VOAs. 4. No reply is filed by the petitioners refuting the averments in the counter affidavit. Page 4 of 5 SRS,J C.C.No.886 of 2025 5. Thus, as seen from the averments of the counter affidavit, the petitioners were removed as VOAs by resolutions dated 12.12.2024, 09.11.2024, 07.12.2024, 03.12.2024 and 09.12.2024, and hence, the violation alleged by the petitioners doesn’t arise. This Court does not find any merit in the contempt case. 6. In the result, this contempt case is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 19.02.2026 IKN p. 5 SRS,J C.C.No.886 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI C.C.No.886 of 2025 Date: 19.02.2026 IKN