APHC010518602024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4338 OF 2024 Between: 1. BETHI SAROJINI, W/o (late) Venkatesh, aged about 56 years, R/o Bandam Charla (v), T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh. 2. . Smt Bethi Bhagyalakshmi,, W/O Venkateswara Rao, Aged About 56 Years, R/O Bandam Charla (V), T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioners AND 1. BETHI PEDDA PULLAIAH, S/o Late Subba Rao, aged about 35 years, R/o Bandam Charla (v), T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Bethi Satyanarayana, s/o (late) Aditya, Aged about 56 years, R/o Bandam Charla (v), T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Bethi John Srinivasa Rao, s/o Seshaiah, aged about 61 years, R/o Bandam Charla (v), T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh ...Respondents/Writ Petitioners 4. The State of AP, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Joint Collector And Addi District Magistrate, Eluru District, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 2 8. The Tahsildar, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 9. The Sub inspector Of Police, T. Narsapuram Mandal Village and Mandal West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: CH SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: SRINIVASA KANNAMA REDDY 3 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri CH. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Contempt Petitioners and Sri K. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri K.J.V.N. Pundareekakshudu, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.12068 of 2023. 2. The present Contempt Case is filed by the Respondents in W.P.No.25668 of 2024. It is the case of the Contempt Petitioners herein that the Writ Petitioners, after having secured an Interim Order to maintain Status- quo obtaining as on the said date, had violated the same. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Writ Petitioners who secured an Interim Order of Status-quo have abused the process of Court and violated the Order of Status-quo which operates against all the parties including the Petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the various Photographs (Ex.P.3), which indicates that damage has been done to the sheds and existing saplings of tobacco plants and oil palm saplings. 4. The Contemnors were called before the Court. Thereafter, the Court had given an opportunity to the Contemnors to purge their contempt by making good the damage and to restore the Status-quo ante. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted the Photographs and Pen Drive to show that the Status-quo ante has been restored by the Petitioners. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would dispute this contention that Status- quo has not entirely been restored. 5. Be that as it may, the Photographs filed by the Petitioners, although indicates the extent of damage caused to the tobacco and oil palm saplings are not so clear to assess the specific damage. Since this proceeding is contempt proceeding, which is quasi criminal in nature, proof is required, and such proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. Since the Photographs filed by 4 the Petitioners herein do not clearly indicate the precise extent and time. This Court is rather satisfied with the attempts done by the Contemnors in restoring the Status-quo ante to some extent. 6. Nevertheless, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, wherein the Writ Petitioners have violated the very Interim Order which they secured in their favour, this Court is of the opinion that the nature of contempt committed by them is an aggravated form of contempt. However, on the directions of this Court, the Contemnor Nos.1 to 3 have made a sincere attempt to purge themselves by restoring the Status-quo ante. 7. In this view of the matter, each of the Contemnor Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay exemplary costs of Rs.3,000/- to each of the Petitioners herein to meet with the legal expenses in filing the present Contempt Case. Let the Costs be paid to the Petitioners within one week from the date of uploading of this Order on the Website of the Court. 8. With these observations and directions, this Contempt Case stands closed. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 09.03.2026 JKS 5 97 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4338 OF 2024 09.03.2026 JKS