1 Date of reserved for orders :- Date of pronouncement : 25.06.2026 Date of uploading :03.07.2026. APHC010190472014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3592] THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO: 2 OF 2014 Between: 1. N.SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. RATTAIAH H.NO. 5-5-7/34-C/1 PLOT NO. 30 DEVI NAGAR, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD 2. T. PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY,, S/O. LATE T. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: PRACTICING ADVOCATE AT HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD, R/O. PLOT NO.373-A, ROAD NO.22, JUBILLEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-33. 3. SMT. E. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,, W/O. E.V.S. REDDY AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O.203, PALM SPRINGS, SHANTINAGAR, HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. E MADAN MOHAN REDDY, S/O. LATE CHANDRSEKHAR REDDY JUDICIAL MEMBER OF A.P.ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD MLA COLONY, ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 2. T PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY, S/O. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY PRACTICING ADVOCATE PLOT NO. 373-A, RAOD NO. 22, JUBILEE HILLS HYDERABAD 3. SMT E VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. EVS REDDY R/O. 203, PALM SPRINGS SHANTINAGAR HYDERBAD 2 4. SRI B R MEENA IAS, PRL. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT., A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERBAD 5. SRI PK MOHANTY CCLA, A.P., HYDERBAD 6. SRI V DURGA DAS IAS, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPUR 7. SRI SHAIK ISMAIL RDO, ANANTHAPUR DIVISION, ANANTHAPUR 8. SRI M BALARAM REDDY, TAHASILDAR, ANANTHAPUR ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K.M.KRISHNA REDDY 3 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (Per NJS,J) The present LPA is listed before the Full Bench with reference to the order dated 20.06.2014 in C.C.No.965 of 2013. 2) A Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble the Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.V.Sanjya Kumar, passed the following order dated 27.06.2014 in Contempt Appeal (SR) No.4049 of 2014 (numbered as LPA No.2 of 2014) filed against order in Contempt Case: “Going through the statements and averments as well as the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in connection with this matter, it appears that the subject matter of this appeal involve the provisions of not only the Constitution, but also the interpretation of the A.P. State Re-Organization Act, 2014. This primarily focuses on the constitutional functioning of the High Court itself and the Hon’ble Judges thereof. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that this matter viz., instant appeal requires larger attention viz., by a larger Bench. Hence, the matter is released from our list treating the same as on day’s list and to be placed by the Registrar (Judicial) forthwith for doing the needful. The opinion of this Court for hearing of this appeal and connected application if any, by the larger Bench shall not be treated as order of reference. But opinion of this Bench must be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice on administrative side forthwith for taking decision on the question of hearing of entire appeal.” 3) Even before the Full Bench was constituted pursuant to the above referred order, in the light of the rider therein that it shall not 4 be treated as an order of reference, the very same learned Division Bench decided the Contempt Case No.965 of 2013 and disposed of the same by an order dated 12.11.2014. It virtually decided the issues pointed out in the order dated 20.06.2014. In fact, in the penultimate para of the order dated 12.11.2014, the learned Division Bench clarified as follows: “29. Since the Larger Bench has not sat as yet, the Registrar (Judicial) shall bring to the attention of the Hon’ble Special Bench about the final disposal of the contempt case as the Letters Patent Appeal is sought to be preferred against an interim order dated 20.06.2014.” 4) Be that as it may. Mr.K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing the official respondents, while referring to the relevant paras in the Division Bench Order submits that after disposal of C.C.No.965 of 2013 deciding points discussed therein, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed C.C.No.114 of 2015 and the same was closed by a Division Bench of this Court on 01.04.2026 as the Order in W.P.No.33217 of 2011 was complied with. 5) In the light of the said position and also in view of the subsequent developments, learned counsel for petitioner also states that nothing survives for adjudication in the present proceedings. 5 6) This Court, under aforementioned circumstances and after going through the material, is satisfied that the point for reference does not survive and requires no answer. 7) Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly closed. No costs. 8) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J CHALLA GUNARANJAN,J Date:25.06.2026. Ssv Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO: 2 OF 2014 Date:25.06.2026. Ssv