APHC010228632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1187/2025 Between: 1. Y. KAMALAKAR REDDY, S/O Y. DAMODAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WORKING AS VILLAGE ORGANIZATINTI ASSISTANT TO TULASI PARASPARA BAHAYAKKA PODUPU SANGAM LIMITED BADANNAPALLI VILLAGE, DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI SHASHIBHUSHAN KUMAR I A S, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, VEGALAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. SMT V KARUNA I A S, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER THE SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF RURAL POVERTY, DEPARTMENT OF RU DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2ND FLOOR, NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA. 3. SRI K S NARASAIAH, S/O CHENNAPPA THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DRDA, SATYA SAI DISTRICT 4. SRI M K SATYANARAYANA, THE AREA COORDINATOR, SERP, p. 2 PUTTAPARTI, SATYA SAI DISTRICT 5. SRI RAGHUNATH REDDY, S/O NARAYANA REDDY THE ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER, SERP DHARMAVARAM MANDAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 6. SRI N VARA PRASAD, S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA THE CLUSTER COORDINATOR, SATYA SAI 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 punish the respondents herein who are intentionally violating the order dated 03-10-2024 passed in wP.No. 22333 of 2024 by the Honble Sri Justice Subba Reddy satti Garu and punish all the respondents for committing contempt of Court orders for disobeying the order made inWP.no. 223333 of 2024 by holding them personally responsible for the costs and consequences thereof as per Article 215 of the Constitution of India, besides section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R YELLA REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. 2. HARI BABU MAGULURI SC For SERP The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri R.Yella Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Haribabu, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6. 2. The above contempt case was filed complaining about the violation of the order dated 03.10.2024 in W.P.No.22333 of 2024. p. 3 3. Petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition complaining of the interference of the respondent-authorities in discharging his duties as Village Organisation Assistant (VOA) in Tulasi Paraspara Sahayaka Sahakara Podupu Sangham Limited, Badannapalli village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Satyasai District, without issuing any notice as illegal and arbitrary. 4. The writ petition was disposed of and the operative portion of the order reads thus: “12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the aforementioned circular issued by Principal Secretary, SERP and the oral instructions of learned A.G.P., this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s discharging duties as Village Organization Assistant (VOA) of Tulasi Paraspara Sahayaka Sahakara Podupu Sangham Limited, Badannapalli village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Satyasai District. No costs.” 5. The contempt case was filed on 29.04.2025. 6. A reply affidavit was filed by the 6th respondent. Along with the reply affidavit, the resolution dated 11.08.2024, passed by the members of the Society, was annexed. As seen from the said resolution, the members of the Society elected K.Kanthamma, as VOA in the place of the petitioner. 7. Sri R.Yella Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, disputed the resolution dated 11.08.2024 passed by the members of the Society and would further contend that due to the change of the Government, the said p. 4 resolution was passed, since the writ petition was disposed of, directing the official respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s discharge of duties as VOA. 8. Electing the VOAs is within the domain of the members of the Samakhya (Society). The members of the society elect one among them as VOA. In the teeth of the resolution dated 11.08.2024, electing another person as VOA, this Court does not find any violation of the order in the writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he can challenge the resolution dated 11.08.2024 before the appropriate authority. 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any violation of the order in the writ petition, and hence, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is Dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD