Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22526 (AP)

M .Rama Rao v. Neerabh Kumar Prasad

CC/967/2017 · 2026-02-18

Ninala Jayasurya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010366142017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 967/2017 Between: 1. M .RAMA RAO,, S/O M.V. RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 42-72-17, BLOCK NO. 72, OPP. EXCEL DUMPING YARD, PNT COLONY, AZITH SINGH NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA 520015. ...PETITIONER AND 1. NEERABH KUMAR PRASAD, Principal Secretary, For state of Andhra Pradesh. Labour Employment and Factories, AP. Secretariat, Block No. 5, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K S MURTHY Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. Y BALAJI NJS,J C.C No.967 of 2017 2 The Court made the following Order: The present contempt case is filed alleging non-implementation of the order dated 27.04.2016 passed in W.P No.14717 of 2016. 2. The respondent No.1 in the said writ petition was directed to dispose of the appeal dated 10.09.2015 stated to have been filed by the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order, after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner. 3. The matter is being adjourned, at the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also due to non-availability of the counsel representing the respondent. 4. Today when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel submits that the efforts made by them to secure instructions from the petitioner proved futile and the registered post addressed was returned with an endorsement “door locked” on one occasion and “no such person in the address” on another occasion. 5. As the writ petition was disposed of, with the above said directions about ten years ago, this Court has no option except to close the contempt case on the premise that the order might have been complied with. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:19.02.2026 Ksj