APHC010623682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3668 of 2025 Between: 1. SMT. NUKAPALLI DEVI,, W/O BULLI VENKANNA, AGE 65 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURAL COOLEE, R/O. ADDATEEGALA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT, (FOREMER EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT), A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KALPA SHREE K R IAS, SUB- COLLECTOR, RAMPACHODAVARAM ASR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. DORAKAYYA, TAHSILDAR, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL A.S.R DISTRICT, A.P 3. CHANDRA SEKAHR, DISTRICT, PANCHAYAT OFFICER, A.S.R.DISTRICT, A.P 4. K KOTESWARA RAO, DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, RAMPACHODAVARAM A.S.R DISTRICT, A.P. 5. N S RATNAM, THE THEN SECRETARY OF YELLAVARAM, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, A.S. R DISTRICT, AP. 6. VITHANALA MURALI, PACHAYATH SECRETARY, YELLAVARAM PANCHAYAT, ADDATEEGALA MANDAL, A.S.R DISTRICT, AP. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. A S NARAYANA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. RAMA RAO KOCHIRI 2. Y KOTESWARA RAO 3. The Court made the following: 3 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.3668 of 2025 ORDER: The present Contempt Case has been filed to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience in implementing the orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 03.01.2025 in W.P.No.8 of 2025. 2. This Court vide order dated 03.01.2025, directed the petitioner herein to submit an explanation to the notice dated 20.12.2024 within a period of 10 (Ten) days from the date of receipt of order and on filing of such explanation, the respondents are directed to examine the said explanation and addressed the same and communicate the said decision to the petitioner herein. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner herein submitted the explanation to the respondent authorities. After receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the respondent No.6 passed orders, as directed by this Court and communicated his decision dated 18.12.2025 to the petitioner herein. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that no opportunity was given to the petitioner while delivering the proceedings dated 18.12.2025. This Court only directed the respondent authorities to address the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents have redressed the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner. Therefore, nothing survives in the Contempt Case to adjudicate further. 4 5. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Dt. 13.03.2026 KNN 5 HON’BL SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.3668 OF 2025 13.03.2026 KNN