Date of reserved for orders : --- Date of pronouncement : 02.07.2026 Date of uploading : 13.07.2026 APHC010512982024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4316/2024 Between: 1. KONURI RAMULAMMA, W/O TIRUPALU,6-34,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, CHINTALA PALEM, ZARUGUMALLI, PARAKASAM DISTRICT-523274. 2. KONDURU JEEVANJYOTHI, W/O PRASANTH REDDY,AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 4-17,ZARUGUMALLI MANADALAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523274. 3. NALAMALA SYAMALA, W/O BRAHMAIAH,6-75,AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS CHINTALAPALEM,ZARUGUMILLI, PRAKASAMDISTRICT- 523274. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SRI SHASHI BHUSHAN KUMAR IAS DISMISSED, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHYATRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY.GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI G VEERA PANDIAN I A S DISMISSED, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF RURAL POVERTY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2ND FLOOR, NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA. CONTEMPT CASE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 AS PER COURT ORDER DATED.14.11.2025 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CC. 4316 OF 2024 3. SMT T VASUNDHARA, THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DRDA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 4. SRI KATTI KALYANI, THE AREA COORDINATOR,SERP, KONDEPI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. SRI DARA JAYARAJ, THE ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER, SERP,ZARUGUMALLI,PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. SRI GARNENUPUDI SAMBAIAH, THE CLUSTER COORDINATOR,SERP, ZARUGUMALLI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. The Contempt Case against respondents 1 And 2 is dismissed as withdrawn as per order, dated 14.11.2025 In I.A.No.1 of 2025 ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the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 Respondents/Contemnors for wilful disobedience of the Orders dated 23-09-2024 of this Hon’ble Court made in WP No.20949 of 2024 in terms of Sections 10 to 12 of the of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit me to withdrawn the contempt of case against Contemnors/Respondents No.1 and 2 who are A not necessary parties to implement the Orders dated 23-09-2024 of this Hon'ble Court made in WPNo.20949of 2024 in terms of Sections 10 to 12 of the of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. INAKOLLU VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. RAMA RAO KOCHIRI 2. The Court made the following order: Heard L. Chandra Obul Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Inakollu Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The above contempt case was filed in November, 2024, complaining of the violation of the order dated 23.09.2024 in W.P.No.20949 of 2024. 3. The petitioners, three in number, filed the aforementioned writ petition alleging that respondents 3 to 6 therein are not allowing them to discharge their duties as Village Organisation Assistants (VOAs). The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.09.2024, directing the respondents 3 to 6 in the writ petition not to interfere with the petitioners’ discharging their duties as VOAs. Since the said order was violated, the above contempt case was filed. 4. In the affidavit, it was contended that pursuant to the order dated 23.09.2024, the petitioners approached the respondents. However, respondent No.6, appointed some other persons as VOAs. A local notice was issued on 23.09.2024. 5. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.5 in the contempt case. It was contended, inter alia, that by the date of filing of the writ petition, the petitioners were removed as VOAs by the members of the respective societies. However, the said fact was not disclosed in the writ affidavit. It is further stated that the writ petition was disposed of based on the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services that the authorities are not interfering with the affairs of the societies. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply would submit that those resolutions were fabricated by the deponent of the counter affidavit and the petitioners came to know about those resolutions when they were filed along with the counter affidavit. 7. Thus, as seen from the material on record, the petitioners were not functioning as VOAs by the date of filing of the writ petition. This Court is not going into the legality of the resolutions, dated 12.08.2024, 14.08.2024 and 12.08.2024, in the contempt proceedings. The petitioners, if aggrieved by the resolutions, have to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. 8. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any violation of the order dated 23.09.2024, and there are no merits in this contempt case. 9. Hence, this contempt case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 02.07.2026 IKN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI C.C.No.4316 of 2024 Date: 02.07.2026 IKN