1 APHC010297412022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3565] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CONTEMPT APPEAL NOS: 31 and 32 of 2022 CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 31/2022 Between: 1. SMT. K. DAMAYANTHI, PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...APPLICANT AND 1. SMT N JHANSI, W/O B.DEVADAS, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. LECTURER, SRI DURGA MALLESHWARA SIDDHARTHA MAHILAKALASALA, R/O SAI NIVAS RESIDENCY, FLAT NO. SF6, DIAMOND BLOCK, GOLLAPUDI, OPP. AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE COLONY,VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. SRI G S PANDA DAS IAS, THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA. 3. SRI NARAYANA BHARATH GUPTHA, DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. R 3 IS IMPLEADED AS SUO MOTO AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 03/11/25 IN CA NO-31 OF 2022. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 To set aside the impugned order dated 14.06.2022 passed in CC No. 164/2019 in WP. No. 26285/2010 in the interest of justice and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 To suspend the operation of the order dated 14.06.2022 in CC. No. 164/2019 pending disposal of the Contempt Appeal and pass. Counsel for the Applicant: 1. M BALA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM 2. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 32/2022 Between: 1. SRI. G.S. PANDA DAS, IAS, THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PRASADAMPADU VIJAYAWADA. ...APPLICANT AND 1. SMT N JHANSI, W/O B. DEVADAS, 59Y, OCC. LECTURER, SRI DURGA MALLESHWARA SIDDHARTHA MAHILAKALASHALA R/O SAI NIVAS RESIDENCY, FLAT NO. SF6 DIAMOND BLOCK, GOLLAPAUDI, OPP. AYYAPA SWAMY TEMPLE COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHFNA DT. 2. SMT K DAMAYANTHI, PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, AP 3. SRI NARAYAN BHARATH GUPTHA, DIRCETOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. R 3 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 03/11/25 IN CA NO-32 OF 2022. ...RESPONDENT(S): 3 pleased to set aside the impugned Order dt. 14.06.2022 passed in CC.No. 164/2019 in W.P.No. 26285/2010 in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to suspend the operation of the Order dt. 14.06.2022 in CC.No. 164 of 2019, pending disposal of the Contempt Appeal and pass Counsel for the Applicant: 1. M BALA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM 2. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CONTEMPT APPEAL NOS.31 AND 32 OF 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) These two (2) Contempt Appeals are filed under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act) by the appellants against the order, dated 14.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.C.No.164 of 2019. The appellants are the respondents in C.C.No.164 of 2019. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for Respondent No.1. 3. Originally, the 1st respondent herein along with others filed W.P.No.26285 of 2010 before this Court seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents therein in not admitting the petitioners to Grand-in-Aid posts as arbitrary, illegal, ultravires and violative of petitioners rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to admit the petitioners into Grand-in-Aid posts with effect from the date of regularization of their services. After hearing the Writ Petition in detail, the learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition vide order, dated 03.10.2018, directing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption into 5 grant-in-aid vacancies, if they were appointed in accordance with the rules and their appointments were approved by Respondents Nos.1 and 2, by duly taking into account the orders passed in W.P.No.14482 of 2006, dated 14.02.2011 and W.P.No.20036 of 2003, dated 13.10.2013 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4. Complaining that the respondents willfully disobeyed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, Writ Petitioner/1st respondent herein filed C.C.No.164 of 2019. In the said Contempt Case, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the appellants herein filed their counter affidavits. The Writ Petitioner filed his reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. After hearing both sides and on careful perusal of the material available on record, the learned Single Judge of this Court who is dealing with the Contempt Case recorded that the contentions raised by the respondents/contemnors therein in their counters are untenable and observed that non compliance of the order, dated 03.10.2018 in W.P.No.26285 of 2010 has no valid reason and therefore, the non compliance shall be treated as contemptuous. At that stage, the learned Single Judge of this Court came to an opinion that a final opportunity should be given to the respondents/contemnors to comply with the aforesaid order. It is also made clear that failing which, due legal action shall be initiated. But, it appears from the order, dated 14.06.2022 passed in the Contempt Case that it was allowed with a direction to the respondents therein 6 to scrupulously comply with the order, dated 03.10.2018 in W.P.No.26285 of 2010 and admit the petitioner in the grant-in-aid post and grant all consequential benefits which the petitioner is entitled to expeditiously by 28.06.2022, as she was retired, failing which, the respondents/contemnors shall personally present in Court on 28.06.2022 and submit explanation for their failure to comply with the order. 5. Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that it is mentioned in the Contempt order passed by the learned Single Judge that the Contempt Case is allowed. But, in the absence of any punishment imposed against the contemnors, the appellants are not entitled to file Contempt Appeal invoking Section 19 of the Act. As such, the learned counsel contends that these appeals deserves to be dismissed on that ground. 6. On the other hand, Mr Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that as the Contempt Case was allowed and certain directions are issued by the learned Single Judge, the appellants are entitled to file Contempt Appeal under Section 19 of the Act. For proper appreciation of the issue involved in these Contempt Appeals, Section 19 of the Act is extracted herein under:- 1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt:- (a) where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a Bench of not less than two judges of the Court; 7 (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. 2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that— (a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended; (b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and (c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt. (3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2). (4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed— (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days; (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against. 7. On a bare perusal of Section 19 of the Act, as extracted herein above, it is clear that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Admittedly, in the present case, though it is mentioned in the order passed by the learned Single Judge stating that the Contempt Case is allowed, no order of punishment has been passed. In the absence of imposing punishment against the contemnors no appeal lies against the said order. 8. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not considered the Contempt Case in proper 8 prospective and passed order as per Sections 10 and 12 of the Act looking into the merits of the case and the material available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that it is proper and desirable to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge to pass orders afresh in accordance with law particularly in the light of the power conferred on the Contempt jurisdiction under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act. 10. Accordingly, these Contempt Appeals are dismissed as not maintainable and C.C.No.164 of 2019 is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. Registry shall place C.C.No.164 of 2019 before the appropriate Court having the roster as early as possible for consideration of the matter afresh. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these cases shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND _____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 09.02.2026 TM 9 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CONTEMPT APPEAL NOS.31 AND 32 OF 2022 Dated: 09.02.2026 TM