APHC010151642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Friday, the sixth day of March two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Contempt Case No.1902 of 2024 Between: Vantapalli Srinivas and M. Surya Teja Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Ponnada Sree Vyas Counsel for the contemnor: 1. T. S. Rayalu The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the sixth day of March two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Contempt Case No.1902 of 2024 ...Contemnor Counsel for the petitioner: Ponnada Sree Vyas Counsel for the contemnor: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Friday, the sixth day of March two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Contemnor 2 BSB, J C.C.No.1902 of 2024 ORDER: The contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for willful non-implementation of the order of this Court, dated 01.03.2024, in C.R.P.No.471 of 2024. 2. The case of the petitioner is, briefly, as follows: a. C.R.P.No.471 of 2024 was filed for inaction of the respondent in registering the petition filed on 27.02.2024 seeking extension of the interim order of injunction, dated 27.11.2023, in O.S.No.17 of 2018/F2 on the file of the Court of Agent to Government (I.T.D.A.), Kotaramachandrapuram. The revision petition was allowed with the following direction to the respondent: “In view of the above facts and circumstances and the submissions made this petition is allowed directing the Agent to Government (I.T.D.A.) Kotaramachandrapuram to forthwith register the petition filed under Section 148 of C.P.C. on 27.02.2024 by the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereon. Copy of this order downloaded from the official website may also be treated as valid for the purpose of presentation before the concerned authority.” b. Through a memo dated 02.03.2024, the petitioner informed the respondent regarding this Court’s order and requested to accept the memo for implementation of the order. Similarly a memo was submitted to the respondent on 04.03.2024 and on 05.03.2024 as well. The memos were duly acknowledged by the respondent. c. In spite of having knowledge of the order, the respondent failed to register the petition of the petitioner and consider the same. The petitioner waited till 7.30 P.M. on 05.03.2024 along with his advocate 3 BSB, J C.C.No.1902 of 2024 with a hope that the petition would be considered, but no opportunity was given to put forth his case. Therefore, for the willful disobedience of the order of this Court, the respondent is liable to be punished. Hence the contempt case is filed. 3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: a. At the outset, the respondent tenders unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the Court due to his acts. He has his highest respect for the judiciary and orders of High Court. There is no willful disobedience of the direction in the order of this Court. b. By taking the representation of the petitioner in File No.REV02/289/2024-SDC(TW)-K.R.Puram, dated 11.03.2024, after hearing both parties, the respondent passed the following order: “This Court has decided not to extend the temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner on 27.11.2023 in O.S.No.17 of 2018/F2 beyond 3 months i.e., 28-02024 (sic 28.02.2024). This case will be disposed off on completion of the trial.” c. The order was communicated to the petitioner and the next date of hearing on 23.03.2024 was fixed. On 23.03.2024, the petitioner attended before the Agent to the Government and submitted a written statement recorded by the respondent. The case was adjourned to 20.05.2024. Suppressing the true facts, the petitioner mislead the High Court. There was no mala fide intention of the respondent. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the contempt case or else the respondent would be subject to harassment for no fault on him. 4 BSB, J C.C.No.1902 of 2024 4. The respondent filed an additional counter affidavit tendering unconditional apology with the averments briefly stated as follows: The petitioner filed memos on 02.03.2024, 04.03.2024 & 05.03.2024 in the office tapal (receiving section). On 02.03.2024, 04.03.2024, the respondent was not holding the office as he is deputed to the Collectorate, Eluru. 03.03.2024 was a public holiday being Sunday. On 05.03.2024, the certified copy of the order dated 01.03.2024 in C.R.P.No.471 of 2024 was forwarded to the concerned clerk on 06.03.2024. The file was prepared and processed on 07.03.2024. The matter was readied for further action. 08.03.2024, being Maha Shivaratri, 09.03.2024 being the second Saturday and 10.03.2024 being Sunday are public holidays. On the very immediate working day i.e., 11.03.2024, the respondent heard the matter and the order was duly complied. Thus, the delay is due to the intervening non- working days. No working day was lost due to any laxity of the respondent or the registry. The respondent is discharging the duties of a quasi-judicial authority. Despite that, compliance was affected at the earliest possible opportunity. The office staff are not well conversant with the procedures of regular civil Court. The omission was unintentional and occurred in the course of routine processing. There is no willful negligence or disobedience of the respondent. The contempt case may be closed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court by the respondent and therefore, the respondent shall be punished for contempt of the order of this Court. 5 BSB, J C.C.No.1902 of 2024 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no deliberate delay in implementation of the order of this Court as explained in the additional counter affidavit and that the delay is attributable only to the administrative process and there was no loss of even a single working day and therefore requested to exonerate the respondent. He further submitted that in the event of believing that there is any delay, the respondent offers unconditional apology and the same may be accepted and further action may be dropped. 7. As can be seen from the statement made by both parties, particularly the vivid details given by the respondent in the action taken on his part, there is obviously no deliberate delay personally caused by him. Since action for contempt has penal consequences, unless there is proved deliberate violation of the order of a Court, action for contempt is not proper. In the present case, since there is no deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondent, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Dt.06.03.2026 NSM / RAR