::1:: APHC010660502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3865/2025 Between: 1. R.NARENDRA KUMAR,, S/O.KRISHNA PRASAD, AGED 54, D.NO 22- 5-57, CONTRACTOR, R/O. RK RESIDENCY, KOTHA PET (V), TENALI (M), GUNTUR DIST,. 2. R.KRISHNA KUMARI,, W/O.NARENDRA KUMAR, AGED 50, CONTRACTOR, R/O. AMARTHALUR (VILLAGE), AMARTHALUR (MANDAL) GUNTUR DIST,. 3. P.LAKSHMI NARAYANA,, S/O. VEERAIAH, AGED 52, D.NO 7-5-29, CONTRACTOR, R/O. CHADALAVADA KRISHNAIAH STREET, GANGANAMMA PET(V),TENALI (M), GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. G.SRINIVASA PRASAD, , S/O G.PRABHAKARA RAO, AGED 51, D.NO 04-01-11, CONTRACTOR, R/O. MANIKYAMMA NAGAR(V), BAPATIA (M) GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SRI G SAI PRASAD IAS, PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST., 2. SRI PEEYUSH KUMAR IAS, PRINCIPLE SECRTARY,FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2ND BLOC2K, 1ST FLOOR, ROOM NO.287, ::2:: SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS. VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 3. SRI K NARASIMHA MURTHY, ENGINEER IN CHIEF, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST., 4. SMT A THAMEEM ANSARIYA I A S, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. SMT P VENKATA RATNAM, SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT. GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. SRI S SUDHAKAR, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT K W DIVISION, TENALI, GUNTUR DIST.. ...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 may be pleased to punish the above contemnors/respondents under the provisions of contempt of courts Act. for their wilfully disobeying the orders of Honble Sri. Justice VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA issued in WP No. 22093 of 2023 and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. VENKATA SAI KRISHNA PONNURU 2. ::3:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO:3865 OF 2025 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 08.01.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22093 of 2023. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this contempt case is filed alleging that orders of this Court dated 08.01.2024 are not complied with as directed by this Court. 4. On perusal of the petition filed by the petitioners, the orders of this Court were served upon the respondents on 01.07.2024. While disposing of the Writ Petition, this Court fixed six (06) weeks time period for release of the amount in favour of the petitioners and to comply with the orders of this Court dated 08.01.2024. If that is so, the order dated 08.01.2024 should be implemented on or before 13.08.2024 since the copy of the order was dispatched by the Registry on 01.07.2024. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the contempt should be filed within a period of one year from the date when the contemptuous action alleged to have been committed by the respondents. Therefore, the contempt case should be filed on or before 12.08.2025, even assuming the date of dispatch to be considered in the absence of any other evidence put forth ::4:: by the petitioner, but admittedly this contempt case is filed on 04.12.2025 without assigning any reasons for the delay caused in sworn affidavit filed in support of the contempt case. It is further observed that no cause of action was duly narrated as required under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is settled law that when special law mandates a procedure, the same cannot be deviated by interpreting otherwise or with the assistance of covered procedure laws i.e., like C.P.C 5. For better understanding Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, is extracted hereunder: “20. Limitation for actions for contempt.—No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.” 6. In view of the reasons stared above and on perusal of the Section 20 of the Act, 1971, it is clear and categorical that after completion of period of one year from the date of cause of action the contempt case is not maintainable. 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 19.02.2026 kkrrkk ::5:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO:3865/2025 19.02.2026 kkrrkk