APHC010405242019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1041 OF 2019 Between: 1. A DWARAKANATH REDDY, S/O.LATEA.VENKATARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, RIO.D.NO.6-82, PANJANISATRAM, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KEERTHI CHEKURI, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADANAPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. MOHANAVALLI, THE TAHASILDAR, PEDDAPANJANIMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S PARINEETA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. T BALASWAMI 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Contempt Case is filed alleging non-implementation of the order dated 29.01.2019 in Writ Petition No. 697 of 2019. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider and dispose of the application made by the petitioner for mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.1.03 cents in Survey No.164/2 and Ac.0-10 cents in Sy.No.164/4 of Kogileru village, Pedapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District, strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law and to complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. A specific direction was also issued to the effect that the decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week, thereafter. The above mentioned order has not been implemented. 2) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got issued a legal notice, dated 13.09.2019, calling upon the respondent Nos.3 and 4 / respondents herein to comply with the order dated 29.01.2019, and as there is no response, the present Contempt Case is filed. He also submits that though in the reply affidavit of the respondent No.2 herein a stand was taken to the effect that pursuant to the orders referred to above, the Endorsement vide ROC No.C/23/2019, dated 22.02.2019 was issued, the same was not served on the petitioner. 3 Further that a copy of the said Endorsement was not even annexed to the reply affidavit of the 2nd respondent and the same was placed for perusal of the Court only on the earlier occasion. Drawing the attention of this Court to the observations of the learned Judge in the docket proceedings on 07.01.2026 that if the petitioner had really rejected / avoided the service of endorsement, dated 22.02.2019, as stated in the reply affidavit, nothing prevented the 2nd respondent to send the endorsement by way of registered post to the petitioner as his address is available with the 2nd respondent. He also submits that the order passed in the Writ Petition, as stated above, obligates the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the procedure established by Law and further that the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent not only flouted the said orders, but also tried to justify that an endorsement has been issued on 22.02.2019. He submits that the conduct of the 2nd respondent in trying to project that the orders have been complied with, in the fact and circumstances of the case, cannot be appreciated and urges for imposing the punishment by holding that the 2nd respondent is guilty of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3) On the other hand, Mr. T.Bala Swamy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent sought to impress upon the Court that there is no violation of the Order, dated 29.01.2019. In fact, the petitioner obtained said orders without disclosing the correct facts to the effect that the application made 4 by the petitioner on the earlier occasion was rejected and said aspect was not disclosed in W.P.No.697 of 2019. He also submitted that the application for mutation would be made through Mee seva and acceptance or rejection of the same would be displayed in the website. However, in the present case, though an attempt was made to serve the endorsement dated 22.02.2019, the petitioner has rejected the same for the reasons known to him. He fairly submits that the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps to communicate the said endorsement by way of registered post to the petitioner. At any rate, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has a remedy against the said rejection endorsement. He further stated that the 2nd respondent was retired from Service on 25.02.2024, and had also tendered an unconditional apology in the reply affidavit. In view of the same, the Contempt Case may be closed, he adds. 4) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 5) At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that order dated 29.01.2019 is clear and unambiguous. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar in the said Writ Petition, who is the 2nd respondent herein, is competent authority to consider the application for mutation of the name in the revenue records, however, no action was taken on the petitioner’s application for mutation, therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.697 5 of 2019. If really the petitioner had filed the petition by suppressing the facts, nothing prevented the respondents to bring it to the notice of the Court at the time of admission or at least for filing the Review Petition. The said procedure was not adopted and, therefore, the submission to justify the action of the 2nd respondent merits, no acceptance. Be that as it may. 6) Insofar as compliance with the order dated 29.01.2019 and the submissions with reference to the Endorsement dated 22.02.2019, the same deserves no consideration. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the service of said endorsement is not effected on the premise that the petitioner refused to receive the same, nothing prevented the 2nd respondent to serve it through registered post, particularly when the petitioner’s address is available. Even otherwise also the reply affidavit is silent as to the compliance with the requirements of the relevant provisions contemplated i.e., issuance of notice etc., as per the provisions of ROR Act, before issuing the Endorsement dated 22.02.2019. To the mind of this Court, the respondent obviously with a view to get over the orders appears to have issued the said Endorsement. In the absence of any material which would substantiate the stand of the respondent that the said Endorsement was sought to be served and the same was rejected, this Court has no option except to conclude that the endorsement is brought on record to avoid action in the 6 present Contempt Case and the respondent No.3 is guilty of non- implementation of the orders referred to above. 7) When this Court about to pass further orders, the 2nd respondent, who is present in the Court, has tendered unconditional apologies and urged the Court to close the Contempt Case as she is already retired from service. In the light of the unconditional apology tendered by the 2nd respondent, and taking a lenient view this Court is inclined to close the Contempt Case. However, in the light of the conclusions recorded by this Court with regard to the Endorsement dated 22.02.2019, it is left open to the petitioner to challenge the same. 8) The Contempt Case is accordingly closed. No costs. NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date:04.02.2026 Ssv 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1041 OF 2019 Date:04.02.2026 Ssv