1 APHC010672132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2026 In/And CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3949 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-16 [3506] Koppisetti Kumari, ...Petitioner Vs. ganji srinivas rao ...Contemnor ********** Advocate for Petitioner: S APPADHARA REDDY Advocate for Contemnor: HARI BABU MAGULURI SC For SERP CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 17th July 2026 ORDER: Heard Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M. Hari Babu Maguluri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Sri Ganji Srinivas Rao, Project Director (DRDA) Kakinada- respondent is personally present before this Court and also filed the additional affidavit on 03.07.2026. This Court has expressed anguish against the respondent the manner in which he deposed in the counter 2 affidavit and the language used therein, both against the counsel who was engaged to defend him, as well as in the process of attempting to justify the action, in non-complying with the orders of this Court. Pursuant to the same by way of the additional affidavit, he has expressed unconditionally apology. Further, he also unconditionally withdrew the words, remarks and other averments made in the counter affidavit filed. Though the language used and the attitude exhibited by the respondent is not in good taste and normally this Court does not accept the apology so extended, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the service of the officer, the same has been taken on record and the unconditionally apology so made is accepted. 3. Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contend that though the orders of this Court has been brought to the notice to the Parrakaluva Village Association, the said organization stated to have eventually taken a decision by way of a resolution not to continue the services of the petitioner which is in clear violation of the orders passed. It is also contended that though the said organization was not a party to the original proceedings and as well as contempt proceedings, mere knowledge of the order is sufficient to proceed against for contempt of Court. Therefore, I.A.No.2 of 2026 has been filed seeking to grant leave to implead the proposed respondents 2 & 3 and I.A.No.3 of 2026 has been filed seeking to implead the proposed respondents 2 & 3, in the present Contempt proceeding. 3 4. Based on the earlier resolution, which was in favour of petitioner, this Court has passed the Order, in W.P.No.9399 of 2025, directing the respondents to act on the same and to give effect to it by allowing the petitioner to continue as V.O.A. The organization eventually has taken a call not to admit the petitioner. The said decision emanates from a resolution passed by the majority of its members. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has to work out his remedies qua the organization by challenging the said resolution. 5. Accordingly, this Contempt Case stands closed. Consequently, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2026 also stands closed. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 17.07.2026 BSM 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2026 In/And CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3949 of 2025 Date: 17.07.2026 BSM