Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/3248/2025 of IN RE Vs SRI N V V SATYANARAYANA on 16 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CONTEMPT CASE Nos: 3243, 3244, 3245, 3246, 3247, 3248
APHC010590042025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
CONTEMPT CASE Nos: 3243, 3244, 3245, 3246, 3247, 3248 & 3249 of 2025
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3243/2025
Between:
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. IN RE, A
...PETITIONER AND
1. SRI N V V SATYANARAYANA, Previously Worked as Regional Director-cum-Appellate, Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Rajamahendravaram Presently Working in the Head Office, Municipal Administration, Vijayawada.
...CONTEMNOR 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 In view of the directions of the Hon'ble Court in the order dated 14.10.2025 passed in I.A No 2 of 2023 and I.A No 1 of 2024 in W.P No 11658 of 2023 to initiate Suo Moto Criminal Contempt proceedings against the Respondent/Contemnor herein namely Sri N.V.V. Satyanarayana, Previously Worked as Regional Director-cum-Appellate, Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Rajamahendravaram. Presently Working in the Head Office, Municipal Administration, Vijayawada, under the Contempt of Courts Act. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
RRR,J & TCDS,J C.C.No.3243 of 2025 & batch
Counsel for the Contemnor:
1. KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI
RRR,J & TCDS,J C.C.No.3243 of 2025 & batch
The Court made the following Common Order:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The respondent in all these cases previously worked as the Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Rajamahendravaram and was working in the Head Office of the Municipal Administration, Vijayawada. A batch of Writ Petitions had been filed, praying for directions, to the respondent authorities, to pay the bills, due to the petitioners in that batch of Writ Petitions. This Court, had issued certain directions, for verification and payment of the bills of the petitioners. At that stage, the respondent herein, is said to have addressed a communication to the District Collector, Rajamahendravaram, on 25.09.2023. Certain statements made in this communication, had come up before this Court, while this Court was considering certain review petitions.
2. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after perusing the contents of the said communication, had arrived at a prima facie view that the language employed by the respondent in the communications was ex facie contemptuous and initiated Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings, under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. The respondent appeared before this Court, after receipt of the notices. He has also filed a counter-affidavit. The respondent had physically appeared before this Court and had expressed his unconditional apology for the language used in the communication issued by him. The respondent stated
RRR,J & TCDS,J C.C.No.3243 of 2025 & batch
that he had not meant any disrespect to this Court and that the language, in the said communication be excused in as much as the respondent had only been pointing out that some of the claims raised by the petitioners, in the Writ Petitions, were not genuine claims and all the facts, need to be placed, before this Court, by way of Appeals against the Orders of the learned Single Judge.
4. We have perused the communication, which was the basis for the Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings being initiated. We have also heard Smt. Sesharajyam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing in the office of the learned Advocate General.
5. On a overall view of the entire issue, we are inclined to accept the unconditional apology of the respondent. This apology is being accepted in view of the fact that the said apology appears to be a genuine apology and that the language, used in the communication though not very respectful to this Court, only appears to be an expression of the genuine concern of the respondent to protect the State revenue.
6. Accordingly, these Contempt Cases are closed.
RRR,J & TCDS,J C.C.No.3243 of 2025 & batch
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
_________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J
KPV
RRR,J & TCDS,J C.C.No.3243 of 2025 & batch
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
CONTEMPT CASE Nos: 3243, 3244, 3245, 3246, 3247, 3248 & 3249 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
17.03.2026
KPV