1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI **** CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3732 of 2025 Between: 1. KALIDINDI SURYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O. PADMARAJU, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO. 5-37, PANCHAYAT OFFICE ROAD, NEAR HIGH SCHOOL, MOGALLU VILLAGE, PALAKODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PEEYUSH KUMAR IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI P ARUNBABU, MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD 2ND FLOOR, SP RIVER VIEW BUILDING, TADEPALLI, AMARAVATI. 3. SRI NAGA RANI I A S, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 4. SRI JAYA RAMACHARI, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, (DELEGATED WITH POWERS OF CE) APSHCL HEAD OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA. 5. SRI G PITCHAIAH INCHARGE, THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 6. SRI G PITCHAIAH, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. ...CONTEMNOR(S): DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 09.03.2026 2 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes / No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No ________________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J 3 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD + CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3732 OF 2025 % 09.03.2026 Between: 1. KALIDINDI SURYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O. PADMARAJU, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO. 5-37, PANCHAYAT OFFICE ROAD, NEAR HIGH SCHOOL, MOGALLU VILLAGE, PALAKODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PEEYUSH KUMAR IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI P ARUNBABU, MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD 2ND FLOOR, SP RIVER VIEW BUILDING, TADEPALLI, AMARAVATI. 3. SRI NAGA RANI I A S, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 4. SRI JAYA RAMACHARI, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, (DELEGATED WITH POWERS OF CE) APSHCL HEAD OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA. 5. SRI G PITCHAIAH INCHARGE, THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 6. SRI G PITCHAIAH, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. ...CONTEMNOR(S): ! Counsel for Petitioner/s : T.Raghu, Ld. Counsel representing Sri Rambabu Koppineedi. 4 ^ Counsel for Respondent/s : Sri P. Naga Raju, Ld. Counsel for R1. Sri K. Mallikharjuna Moorthy, Ld. Counsel for R2 to R6. < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1) (2019) 16 SCC 794 2) 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8035 3) 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 814 4) (1988) 3 SCC 603 5) (2004) 8 SCC 683 6) (1983) 4 SCC 141 7) (1985) 1 SCC 429 8) (1994) 1 SCC 243 9) (2005) 13 SCC 659. 5 APHC010638322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3732/2025 Between: 1. KALIDINDI SURYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O. PADMARAJU, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO. 5-37, PANCHAYAT OFFICE ROAD, NEAR HIGH SCHOOL, MOGALLU VILLAGE, PALAKODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PEEYUSH KUMAR IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI P ARUNBABU, MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD 2ND FLOOR, SP RIVER VIEW BUILDING, TADEPALLI, AMARAVATI. 3. SRI NAGA RANI I A S, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 4. SRI JAYA RAMACHARI, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, (DELEGATED WITH POWERS OF CE) APSHCL HEAD OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA. 5. SRI G PITCHAIAH INCHARGE, THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 6. SRI G PITCHAIAH, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. ...CONTEMNOR(S): 6 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. NAGARAJU PULLAGURA 2. MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED) The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri T. Raghu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri P. Nagaraju, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Sri K. Mallikarjuna Murthy, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6. 2. The present Contempt Case is filed complaining of non-compliance of the Order of this Court dated 01.08.2025 in W.P.No.5237 of 2024. The relevant portion of the Order dated 01.08.2025 is reads as under: “2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking recovery of certain arrears in respect of the execution of work (filling of low lying lands). The Writ Petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.9,49,477/-. 3. xxxxx 4. The Written Instructions would indicate that the Writ Petitioner is entitled to the net amount of Rs.8,33,730/- after deduction of the statutory recoveries. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, having taken instructions from his client, is agreeable to accept the balance amount of Rs.8,33,730/- as full and final settlement on the condition that the said due amount may be directed to be remitted to the Writ Petitioner as expeditiously as possible. 6. Having regard to the above facts, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Writ Petition, directing the Official Respondents to pay a sum of Rs.8,33,730/- as full and final settlement within a period of eight (08) weeks from today, by completing all the inter-departmental administrative formalities by cooperation and coordination between all the concerned departments and transfer the 7 said amount to the bank account of the Writ Petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter.” 3. The above extract, would indicate that while the Writ Petitioner claimed Rs.9,49,477/- as dues from the Official Respondents, the lesser amount offered by the Official Respondents is Rs.8,33,730/- was accepted by the Writ Petitioner without claiming any interest on the condition that the said due amount may be paid as expeditiously as possible. Taking note all these facts, this Court had liberally granted eight (08) weeks time for completing the administrative process and additional four (04) weeks for transfer of the due amount to the bank account of the Writ Petitioner. 4. Sri P. Nagaraju, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, has now submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department dated 09.03.2026. Copy of it is supplied to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the same is taken on record. 5. The Written Instruction would indicate that the due amount of Rs.8,45,003/- has been paid to the Petitioner on 09.03.2026 i.e., today. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, admits this position that the Petitioner has received the said amount. 7. In view of the latest Written Instructions that the due amount has been paid to the Petitioner on 09.03.2026, under threat of contempt, this Court is inclined to close this Contempt Case. 8. However, in public interest, before parting with this Contempt Case, this Court is inclined to take note of the hardship caused to the citizens who are compelled to approach the Court again and again due to non-payment and non-compliance of the promises made by the Official Respondents within the time fixed by this Court. This Court is also inclined to note the legal position insofar as the vicarious liability of the State and also the trite law that had shifted the vicarious liability to that of individual liability on the part of the erring 8 Officers. This Court is also inclined to refer to the settled law that financial stringency on the part of the Respondents is no ground to delay the payments to the citizens. 9. Having regard to paras 4 & 5 of the Order of this Court dated 25.02.2026 that Writ Petitioners, who are seeking recovery of their bills, were once again compelled to approach this Court by filing Contempt Cases, this Court is of the view that filing of such cases before this Court involves legal expenses to be incurred by the litigant. In cases where the recovery of bills, particularly where the amounts are paltry, it can be safely assumed that the parties are compelled to incur expenditure in the form of legal expenses that would have a serious bearing on the dues that they would recover. Even in such instances, where the Court, after having considered the facts and the admitted position, had allowed the Writ Petitions by giving sufficient time to the Respondents liberally, the Official Respondents are not paying heed to the Orders of this Court, thereby compelling the Writ Petitioners to once again approach this Court by filing Contempt Cases.Once again, at the second stage, the litigants are made to ‘bleed’ by incurring legal expenses. This Court is of the view that in such situations, the Officers alone shall be made responsible for creating such compelling situations for the litigants to approach this Court again and again. In such cases, this Court is of the considered view that the parties should not suffer any additional burden in the form of legal expenses and if they suffer, then the litigants must be duly compensated. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable for this Court to award costs personally against the Official Respondents for creating these compelling situations. MANDATE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDERS: 10. The views of this Court, as mentioned above, are fortified by the dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-7 of the case in Bigyan Kumar v. Union of India : (1988) 3 SCC 603. Para-7 is usefully extracted hereunder: 9 “7. We would part with the matter by recording our serious concern and disapproval of the growing conduct of parties and public officers in particular of ignoring the directions of the courts and the multiplying instances of confrontation. The court, including the apex one, is a part of the State and is a built-in mechanism of the Constitution to administer justice in accordance with law. For discharging that duty, the court has got to adopt an attitude of critical assessment of situations connected with litigation brought before it for adjudication. The manner of functioning of the court in accord with the Rule of Law has to be dispassionate, objective and analytical. The judges who preside over these courts do not act with a sense of superiority; nor do they look down upon others in the community. In order that the system may efficiently work and the purpose for which the courts are established is duly served, it is necessary that everyone within the framework of the Rule of Law must accept the system, render due obedience to orders made and in the event of failure of compliance, the rod of justice must descend down to punish. We hope and trust that everyone within the system realises this situation and does not unnecessarily get into a confrontation." (Emphasis supplied) 11. In E.T. Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Assn., : (2004) 8 SCC 683, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Paras-16 and 17, which are usefully extracted hereunder: “16. It has become a tendency with the government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of court and try to take recourse to one justification or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the Court. This tendency of undermining the Court's order cannot be countenanced. This Court time and again has emphasised that in a democracy the role of the court cannot be subservient to administrative fiat. The executive and legislature have to work within the constitutional framework and the judiciary has been given the role of watchdog to keep the legislature and executive within check. In the present case, we fail to understand the counter filed by the appellant before the Court. On one hand they say that all the cases of GPF have been processed and on the other hand they are not prepared to revoke the administrative order. This only shows a deliberate attempt on the part of the bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court and stick to their stand. 10 This is clear violation of the Court's order and the appellant is guilty of flouting the Court's order. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the High Court does not call for interference.” FINANCIAL STRINGENCY IS NO GROUND: 12. It is settled law that the financial stringency is no ground either to deviate or for non-complying with the orders of the Court. View of this Court is fortified by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Constructions vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others : (2019) 16 SCC 794 in Para Nos.3 & 4, which are usefully extracted hereunder: “3. It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22-3- 2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No. 25216 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated 2-5-2014 [Surya Construction v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 6071] dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553] ) 4. This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2009, we direct Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessary payment within a period of four weeks from today. Given the long period of delay, interest @ 6% p.a. may also be awarded.” 13. In Mr. S.C. Meena, EE (Project Narela) vs. Amit Tanwar : 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8035, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, held in Para No.48, which is usefully extracted hereunder: 11 48. It is equally strange that the Corporation seeks to justify the non-payment on the ground of non-availability of funds for medicines or hospital items or pensions or salaries of the Corporation. Running the Corporation is not the business of the Contractor. It is for the Corporation to manage its affairs as per the funds available with it and it cannot be a defense that the Contractor should bear the brunt of non-payment for years, of works executed by him. 14. In Kashmir Wood Products vs Verinag Development Authority and Others : 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 814, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, held in Para No.8, which is usefully extracted hereunder: “8. It is astonishing to note that despite there being no dispute as regards the claim of the petitioners, the respondents have sit over the matter for the last more than six years and they have not released the payment in favour of the petitioner. If the requisite funds were not available with the respondents, they had no business to allot the work to 4 the petitioner and if in spite of financial constraints, the respondents have made the petitioner to execute the work out of his own funds, it is their bounden duty to reimburse the petitioner at the earliest, that too with interest.” SHIFT FROM VICARIOUS LIABILITY TO PERSONAL LIABILITY: 15. Insofar as the March of Law with regard to the compensatory jurisprudence, it is trite law that the subject of vicarious liability has now been shifted to that of personal liability under certain conditions and situations on the principle that for the lapses of the Officers, public exchequer of the State shall not be over burdened by paying costs. Views of this Court, as mentioned above, that under certain conditions and situations, the Officers of the State shall be made personally responsible and appropriate compensation that is awarded, shall first be paid by the State and later be recovered from the employee/officer concerned is fortified by the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and another : (1983) 4 SCC 141, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Para-10 is usefully extracted hereunder: “10. We cannot resist this argument. We see no effective answer to it save the stale and sterile objection 12 that the petitioner may, if so advised, file a suit to recover damages from the State Government. Happily, the State's counsel has not raised that objection. The petitioner could have been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim to compensation was factually controversial, in the sense that a civil court may or may not have upheld his claim. But we have no doubt that if the petitioner files a suit to recover damages for his illegal detention, a decree for damages would have to be passed in that suit, though it is not possible to predicate, in the absence of evidence, the precise amount which would be decreed in his favour. In these circumstances, the refusal of this Court to pass an order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip-service to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated. Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders of release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against those officers.” 16. In State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair : (1985) 1 SCC 429, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Para-5 as under: “5. We are also of the view that the State Government is being rightly saddled with a liability for the culpable neglect in the discharge of his duty by the District Treasury Officer who delayed the issuance of the L.P.C. but since the concerned officer had not been impleaded as a party defendant to the suit the Court is unable to hold him liable for the decretal amount. It will, however, be for the State Government to consider whether the erring official should or should not be directed to compensate the Government 13 the loss sustained by it by his culpable lapses. Such action if taken would help generate in the officials of the State Government a sense of duty towards the Government under whom they serve as also a sense of accountability to members of the public.” 17. In Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta : (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon’ble Apex Court had discussed, the March of Law and the changing trend from vicarious liability to personal liability starting from Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P’s case. : AIR 1965 SC 1039. The Hon’ble Apex Court had also dealt with obliteration of thin line between vicarious liability propounded in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain’ case to the case of Lucknow Development Authority in Para-11 of the Order of the Hon’ble Apex Court is usefully extracted hereunder: “11. Today the issue thus is not only of award of compensation but who should bear the brunt. The concept of authority and power exercised by public functionaries has many dimensions. It has undergone tremendous change with passage of time and change in socio- economic outlook. The authority empowered to function under a statute while exercising power discharges public duty. It has to act to subserve general welfare and common good. In discharging this duty honestly and bona fide, loss may accrue to any person. And he may claim compensation which may in circumstances be payable. But where the duty is performed capriciously or the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then the responsibility to pay the loss determined should be whose? In a modern society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. Public administration, no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields the action of administrative authority. But where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover. When a citizen seeks 14 to recover compensation from a public authority in respect of injuries suffered by him for capricious exercise of power and the National Commission finds it duly proved then it has a statutory obligation to award the same. It was never more necessary than today when even social obligations are regulated by grant of statutory powers. The test of permissive form of grant is over. It is now imperative and implicit in the exercise of power that it should be for the sake of society. When the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payers' money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court has lamented as regards the indifference shown by the Executive towards its orders and proceeded to impose costs of Rs.10,000/- on the Ministry of Environment in the case of Research Foundation for Science (10) v. Union of India : (2005) 13 SCC 659. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Para-3 as under: “3. It appears to us that the orders passed by this Court are not taken as seriously as they should be. We now direct the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests to file affidavits in compliance with this Court's orders dated 14-9-2001 [Research Foundation for Science (8- B) v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 657 (2)] and 3-12- 2001 [Research Foundation for Science (9) v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 658] within 12 weeks. Because of the non-compliance with this Court's orders, the Ministry of Environment shall also pay Rs 10,000 as costs. The Government will be at liberty to recover the costs from the officials who were negligent in not complying with this Court's orders.” 15 19. However, this being the first case where the Court had expressed its concern about the plight of the litigants, for this case alone, this Court had taken a lenient view by not imposing such costs, as indicated above, on the Official Respondents. 20. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to communicate a copy of this Order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh to enable him to communicate this Order to all the Officers in all the Departments that this Court would not hesitate to impose costs ‘personally’ against the Officers for not implementing the Orders of this Court with regard to recovery of bills. Let the Registrar (Judicial) convey a copy of this Order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh within one week from today for effective compliance. 21. With the above observations, this Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. 22. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:09.03.2026 Note: LR Copy to be marked. B/o. Vns/Mnr 16 77 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE No.3732 OF 2025 Date: 02.03.2026 L.R copy to be marked B/o. VNS/MNR