Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/3881/2024 of Vaddi Pullayya, Vs Himanshu Shukla, I.A.S, on 26 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3881/2024 Between: Vaddi Pullayya, ...PETITIONER AND Himanshu Shukla I A S and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel
APHC010432852024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3332]
MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3881/2024
Between:
Vaddi Pullayya,
...PETITIONER
AND
Himanshu Shukla I A S and Others
...CONTEMNOR(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. K M KRISHNA REDDY
2. Y KOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following order:
This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of orders dated 09.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.28578/2023.
2. Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in the counter filed by the 6th respondent, the authorities have stated that they are not interfering with the petitioner’s property and hence, no further orders are required to be passed in the contempt case and prayed to close the same.
3. This court passed orders dated 09.11.2023 in W.P.No.28578/2023 which reads as follows: “The respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the property bearing house site bearing door No.3-59, Pedapatnam village, Mamidikuduru mandal, Dr.B.R.Amebdkar konaseema district(erstwhile East Godavari District) expect under due process of law.”
4. A perusal of the counter filed by the 6th respondent would indicate that the authorities are not interfering with the petitioner’s property. As such there remains nothing for adjudication in this contempt case and is liable to be closed.
Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 27.07.2026 BRS