Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/4141/2024 of SATYALA VEERA VENKATA NAGA MALLESHWARI Vs SMT K. VETRI SELVI, IAS on 30 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: Between: 1. SATYALA VEERA VENKATA NAGA MALLESHWARI, W/O S.RAGHAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44YRS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.5-218,
APHC010478192024
IN TH
TUESDAY,
TWO
THE HONOURA
CO
Between:
1. SATYALA
VEERA
S.RAGHAVA RAO,
D.NO.5-218, NEAR
AND MANDAL, ELU
1. SMT K VETRI SE
DISTRICT, ELURU.
2. D V SUBBA RA
DISTRICT.
Petition under Secti
that in the circumstances
be pleased to pleased t
12 of Contempt of Cou
disobedience to the orde
dated 02.01.2024 passed
pass
Counsel for the Petition
1.KODATI RAMYA KR
Counsel for the Contem
1.J DILEEP KUMAR
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARC
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL
NTEMPT CASE NO: 4141/2024
A
VENKATA
NAGA
MALLESH
AGED ABOUT 44YRS, OCC HOUS
POTTI SREE RAMULU STATUE, N
URU DISTRICT.
AND
ELVI IAS, THE DISTRICT COLLEC
.
AO, TAHSILDAR, NUZIVID MAN
...CO
ons 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts A
s stated in the affidavit file herein the o punish the respondent herein unde urts Act, 1971 for their wilful violation er of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 3
d by his Lordship Sri Justice Ravi Ch
ner:
RISHNA
mnor(S):
RC,J
DESH
CH
LAPATI
HWARI,
W/O
SE WIFE, R/O
NUZIVID TOWN
...PETITIONER
CTOR, ELURU
NDAL, ELURU
ONTEMNOR(S):
Act 1971 praying
High Court may
er sections 10 to
n and deliberate
33522 of 2023,
eemalapati, and
RC,J
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.
ORDER
This Contempt Case is filed alleging non compliance of the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33522 of 2023.
2. The facts that led to filing of the Contempt Case, in brief, are that Through the orders dated 02.01.2024, the authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner within a period of three (03) months. The petitioner contends that pursuant to the orders of this Court, she submitted representations on 04.03.2024 and 19.08.2024 to the respondent no.1, but they were not considered and disposed of as directed by this Court. Therefore, there is willful disobedience of the orders of this Court.
3. The respondent no.1 filed reply affidavit contending that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, notice has been issued to the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner attended for personal hearing and submitted tax receipt and Building Permit Order and after due enquiry the District Level Redressal Committee, upon scrutinizing the proposals and records submitted by the Sub Collector, recommended for rejection of the request of the petitioner for deletion of Ac.0-32 cents from Prohibited Properties List under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act. That based on the recommendations of the District Level Redressal Committee, proceedings have been issued rejecting the application of the petitioner and therefore, the order of this Court has duly been complied, but for with some delay, which was due to searching for old files.
RC,J
4. Heard Ms. K.Ramya Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri J.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
5. Ms. K.Ramya Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings were passed after one year of filing of this Contempt Case and this itself shows the deliberate disobedience of the respondent and accordingly prayed to allow the contempt case.
6. Sri J.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1, would contend that the authorities have to trace out the very old files for effective adjudication of the matter and thus the delay occurred, which is neither deliberate nor willful. He would further contend that the contempt case being meritless deserves dismissal.
7. By issuing proceedings vide Roc.No.e-87129/2025/E2(LMS), dated 07.10.2025 the orders passed by this Court directing the authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application has been complied, however with delay. The writ petition was disposed of on 02.01.2024 and according to the petitioner she submitted her representation on 04.03.2024, whereas the impugned orders were passed on 07.10.2025, nearly a year after filing of this Contempt Case. The reason offered by respondent no.1 that the delay was occurred due to tracing out and verification of very old files for passing effective orders, is found satisfactory.
RC,J
8. In view of the above, this Contempt Case is closed. The petitioner is at liberty to question the orders dated 07.10.2025 passed by respondent no.1. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSETICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 31st March, 2026.
RR