1 APHC010411972021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE 10th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1869/2021 Between: Teegala Suresh Babu ...PETITIONER AND M Nageswara Rao and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SUBODH Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. P SUBASH 2. T KUMAR BABU The court made the following order: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of orders dated 17.08.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.14232/2021. 2. Heard Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Kumar Babu, learned counsel for 2nd respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, while disposing of the writ petition W.P.No.14232/2021, this court, treating the impugned proceedings 2 dated 30.06.2021 & 04.07.2021 as show cause notices, has given an opportunity to the petitioner to file additional explanation and further directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner’s aqua culture farm/tank, until appropriate decision is taken on the petitioner’s explanation and communicated the same to the petitioner. He further submitted that, pursuant to the said directions, the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 19.09.2021 but the same was not considered nor passed any orders on the same. He further submitted in the counter, it was stated that the authorities have passed orders on 20.10.2021 and the same was sent through post on 25.10.2021 but before the said orders reached the petitioner, the authorities have demolished the petitioner’s aquaculture on 23.10.2021, which amounts to willful disobedience of the orders passed by this court. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, Sri T.Kumar Babu learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/contemnor while relying on the counter affidavit submitted that, the alleged explanation dated 19.09.2021 was not received by the authorities and there was no postal receipt to that effect. He further submitted that, since the authorities have not received any explanation from the petitioner within the stipulated time as per the directions of this court, the respondent authorities have passed orders dated 20.10.2021 but due to oversight, the date of order was mentioned as 20.08.2021 instead of 20.10.2021 and accordingly the petitioner’s ponds were demolished by the authorities on 23.10.2021. 3 He further submitted that, the 2nd respondent against which the present contempt case is filed has retired from the service and the new incumbent was not impleaded as party respondent to the present contempt case. However, the petitioner has not questioned the orders passed by the authorities dated 20.10.2021. As such the contempt is liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the contempt case. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. This Court has disposed of the W.P.No.14232/2021 on 17.08.2021 with the following direction: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned proceedings dated 30.06.2021 and 04.07.2021 are treated as notices and opportunity is given to the petitioner to file additional explanation, if any, to the said notices, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After receipt of the additional explanations from the petitioner within the stipulated time, the Competent Authority is directed to deal with the same and take appropriate decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible. Till the appropriate decision is taken in the matter and communicated to the petitioner herein, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner’s aqua culture farm/tank, which is mentioned in the impugned notices. If no reply is received within the time stipulated above, the respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law. As there is an interim direction pending writ petition directing the 7th respondent not to disconnect the power supply pursuant to the notice in D.No.803/2021, dated 09.07.2021 for Service Nos.120, 121 and 146 of Pittivanipalli village, Chittamuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, the 7th respondent is directed not to disconnect the power supply to the subject tanks of the petitioner, till appropriate decision is taken by the Competent Authority.” 4 7. The petitioner has filed the present contempt case stating that despite the above orders, the authorities have demolished the petitioner’s aquaculture on 23.10.2021 without communicating the orders passed by them dated 20.10.2021 to the petitioner. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the authorities have not passed any orders. However, it was brought to the notice of this court that the authority who had passed the order dated 20.10.2021 had retired from service, and the successor-in-office had not been impleaded as a party respondent. Admittedly, when the petitioner has knowledge about the orders passed dated 20.10.2021, he did not choose to question the said orders. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the authority concerned has not followed the directions of this court, as such, there lies no contempt against the respondents and contempt is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, contempt case is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS