APHC010589942015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 706/2015 Between: 1. D. VENKATESH REDDY,, S/ O. LATE D. UPENDER REDDY, AGED ABOUT : 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO. 99/A, MLA COLONY, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2. DR. L. CHANDRA SHEKAR,, S/ O. L. ACHARY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: DENTIST, R/ O. PLOT NO. 511, EDEN A, CASAPARADESO, SANATHNAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SMT Y V ANURADHA IAS, THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BOGULKUNTA, TILAK NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. SRI K V SAGAR BABU, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI. BRAMARAMBIKA MALLIKAARJUNA SWAMY, DEVASTANAM, SRISAILAM, KURNOOL 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 pleased to punish the respondents under Section 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for their deliberate, willful violation of interim orders dated 19-02-2015 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 2371 of 2015 in W.P.No. 1770 of 2015 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 2 1. T SURYA SATISH Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 706/2015 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 19.02.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1770 of 2015. 2. None appeared for the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this Court passed an interim order dated 19.02.2015 in W.P.No.1770 of 2015, which is extracted hereunder: “The case of the petitioners is that the respondents have abruptly discontinued the performance of Baghalla Mukhi Homam in the 3rd respondent temple from 01.02.2014, without assigning any reasons and without issuing any notice to the devotees. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent produced proceedings dated 26.04.2014 which states that as per the oral instructions of the 2nd respondent, the said Homam was stopped and the same is stated in para 2 of the said proceedings. The proceedings dated 26.01.2014 and 13.01.2015 does not show any reason on what ground the said Homam was discontinued. As such, the respondents cannot abruptly and unilaterally discontinue the rituals that are being performed in the temples. 4 In view of the above, there shall be interim direction as prayed for.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that pending the contempt case, this Court passed a final order dated 14.11.2024 in W.P.No.1770 of 2015, which is extracted hereunder: “3. On 19.02.2015, this Court while issuing „Rule Nisi‟ granted interim direction to the respondents to continue the performing of Baghalaa Mukthi Homam everyday at 07.30 PM in the 3rd respondent temple premises as was done earlier. 4. On hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that as the respondents are performing Baghalaa Mukthi Homam in the 3rd respondent temple premises as per the interim orders of this Court, dated 19.02.2015, no further orders are required to be passed in this Writ Petition and it may be closed. 5. Recording the submissions of learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3, this Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that since the Writ Petition itself is closed, no further orders are required to be passed in the contempt case. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the final order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1770 of 2015, it is observed that in view of the interim orders of this Court, the respondents are performing Baghalaa Mukthi Homam regularly and 5 the claim of the petitioner was complied with, as such no contempt is made out of interim order. 7. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 24.02.2026 TTPPSS//BBSSPP 6 38 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 706/2015 24.02.2026 TTPPSS//BBSSPP