APHC010377932024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4053/2024 Between: 1. YANNAMLAKSHMI NARAYANA, S/O LATE VEERAIAH, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O H.NO 19-10- 24,MUTHEMSETTIVARIPALEM, RAMAMANIDER VEEDHI, 16TH WARD, TENALI TOWN. GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. GOLLA DURGA, W/O G.GOPI KRISHNA, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O H.NO 9-10-24,MUTHEMSETTIVARIPALEM, RAMAMANIDER VEEDHI, 16TH WARD, TENALI TOWN. GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. VENNAMADRI SHYAM KUMAR, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, RJO H.NO 19-10- 24,MUTHEMSETTIVARIPALEM, RAMAMANIDER VEEDHI, 16TH WARD, TENALI TOWN. GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SRILAKSHMI IASDISMISSED, ,PRLSEECRETARY, DEPT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. S NAGALAKSHMI IAS DISMISSED, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR TOWN, AND DISTRICT. 3. S SATISH KUMAR IPS DISMISSED, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR TOWN AND DISTRICT. 2 4. BANDI SESHANA, S/O NOT KNOWN, THE COMMISSIONER, TENALI MUNICIPALITY, TENALI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, , I TOWN POLICE STATION, TENALI, TENALITOWN AND GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4 6. ARE CHINA YESU, S/O LATE PENCHALAIAH, AGE,64 YEARS, OCC, RETD SERVICE, MUTHEMSETTIVARIPALEM, RAMAMANDIR VEEDHI, 16TH WARD, TENALI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 7. DARA CHINA ANJANEYULU, S/O CHENNAIAH, AGE,58 YEARS, OCC, BSNL EMPLOYEE. H.NO 9-10-24, MUTHEMSETTIVARIPALEM, RAMAMANDIR VEEDHI, 16TH WARD, TENALI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8. PULIPATI CHENNAIAH, S/O VEERA RAGHAVULU, AGE,67 YEARS, OCC, RETD BSNL, ANDHRA RATNA ROAD, MUTHEMSETTIVARIPALEM, RAMAMANDIR VEEDHI, 16 WARD, TENALI TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 9. DARA CHINA ANJANEYULU, , S/O LAKSHMAIAH,(DAID) AGE,68 YEARS, OCC, RETD MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE. H.NO 9-10-24, MUTHEMSETTIVARIPALEM, RAMAMANDIR VEEDHI, 16TH WARD, TENALI TOWN, GUNTUR 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 respondent for the willful violation and deliberate disobedience to the orders passed by His Lordship Hon'ble Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti, as made in WP No 6740 of 2023, Dated 04-03-2024, under section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M CHALAPATHI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K RAGHAVA CHARYULU 2. D BALAKRISHNAIAH 3 3. A JAYANTHI 4. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri M.Chalapthi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Raghava Charyulu, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The above contempt case was filed complaining of the violation of the order dated 04.03.2024, passed in W.P.No.6740 of 2023. 3. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of, and the operative portion of the order reads as follows: “In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 9, there is no dispute regarding construction of temple and issuance of notices to respondent Nos.6 to 9. Hence, without going into other dispute questions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.6 to 9 to submit explanation to the notices by annexing all the relevant records/documents. On such submission, the learned Commissioner of respondent No.4 shall hear the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.6 to 9 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. Till the petitioners get permission, respondent Nos.6 to 9 shall not proceed with construction or renovation of temple in 16th ward, Muthemsettivaripalem, Tenali. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was specifically pleaded that the respondents 6 to 8 violated the order. 4 5. A counter-affidavit was filed by the 4threspondent. Along with the counter-affidavit, a speaking order vide Roc.No.313/2023/G3 dated 16.10.2024, was annexed. 6. A perusal of the speaking order discloses that the Commissioner, Tenali Municipality, in pursuance of the directions issued in the aforementioned writ petition, called upon the petitioners and other parties, considered the respective claims and passed the order. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner,Tenali Municipality, dated 16.10.2024, they have to challenge the order before the appropriate forum. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any violation of the order. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 02.01.2026 SNI 5 265 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO:4053/2024 Date: 02.01.2026 SNI