APHC010542362024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4504/2024 Between: 1. GOVINDHU SUDHA RANI, W/O.KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. EX. CF (VILLAGE ORGANIZER ASSISTANT) R/O.D.NO.3-21, BODAWADA VILLAGE, PAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANIL KUMAR SINGHAL IAS, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. P VASUNDHARA, THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. SRI GANTA VIDYA SAGAR, THE ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER, VELUGU DRDA, PAMURU MANDAL SAMAKYA, PAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 respondents No.2 and 3 herein who are intentionally violating the order, dated 04-10-2024 passed in W.P.No.22587 of 2024 by the Hon'ble Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti Garu and punish all the respondents for committing contempt of court orders for disobeying the order made in W.P.No.22587 of 2024 by holding them personally responsible for the 2 costs and consequences thereof as per Article 215 of the Constitution of India, besides Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DAGGUBATI RAMASWAMY REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Daggubati Ramaswamy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The above contempt case was filed complaining about the violation of the order dated 04.10.2024 in W.P.No.22587 of 2024. 3. Two petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petition complaining of interference with their discharge of duties as Village Organisation Assistants to their respective societies. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing the Assistant Project Manager not to interfere with the petitioners’ discharge of duties as Village Organisation Assistants of the respective societies. 4. Out of two petitioners, one petitioner filed the present contempt case. In para-4 and 6 of the affidavit, the petitioner contended that, after the disposal of the writ petition, the respondents 2 and 3 in the contempt case restrained the petitioner from discharging duties and pressured her to handover the records and thereby violated the order. 5. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly contend that the name of another member of the society was updated in the records as Village Organisation Assistant. If the name of another member in the society was updated in the records to Village Organisation Assistant, the petitioner could have challenged the same before the appropriate forum. Neither the Project Director nor the Assistant Project Manager updated the records 3 without any communication from the society regarding electing the present one among them as Village Organisation Assistant. 6. Given the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s name is no longer available in the portal and that the name of another member was updated in the portal, in pursuance of the other member was elected as VOA, this Court does not find any violation of the order dated 04.10.2024 in W.P.No.22587 of 2024. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 08.01.2026 SNI 4 262 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4504/2024 Date: 08.01.2026 SNI