Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/70/2023 of SMT DASRI SULOCHAN Vs GOPAL KRISHNA DWIVEDI,I.A.S on 5 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CONTEMPT CASE NO: 70/2023 Between: 1. SMT DASRI SULOCHAN, W/O DASARI RARNAKRISHNA , AGED 42 YEARS, WORKED AS
APHC010724262022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 70/2023
Between:
1. SMT DASRI SULOCHAN, W/O DASARI RARNAKRISHNA , AGED 42
YEARS,
WORKED
AS
EX-SARPANCH,
GAUGUBELLI
GRAMAPANCHAYAT, R/O GARGUBELLI VILLAGE, MANDAL, PARVATHI
PURAM
MANYAM
(VIZAYANAGRAM)
DISTRICT.
CONTEMNOR/PETITIONER
...PETITIONER
AND
1. GOPAL KRISHNA DWIVEDI I A S, THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT
RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE
COMMISSIONER,
PANCHAYAT
RAJ
AND
RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 26-6-8/1, SRICHARITHA SREE
BUILDING,
NAKKAL
ROAD,
SURYARAOPET,
VIJAYAWADA,
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. THE
ADDITIONAL
COMMISSIONER,
MAHATHMA
GANDHI
NATIONAL
RURAL
EMPLOYMENT
GAURANTEE
SCHEME
(MGNREGS),
GOVERNMENT
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH,
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. SRI
A
SURYA
KUMARI,
THE
DISTRICT
COLLECTOR,
VIZAYANAGRAM
DISTRICT,
PRESENT
(
PARVATHIPURAM
MANYAM).
5. SRI G UMAMAHESWARI, THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT
WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, VIZAYANAGRAM DISTRICT,
6. SMT PYDI THALLI, THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER
(MPDO),
GURUGUBILLI
GRAMPANCHAYATI,
GURUGUBILLI
VILLAGE
AND
MANDAL,
PARVATHIPURAM
MANYAM DISTRICT R 6 LEAVE GRANTED AS PER COURT ORDER
DT.16/03/2023. VIDE IA NO.1 OF 2023. IN CC NO.70 OF 2023.
7. MR JAGADEESH, GURUGUBILLI GRAMAPANCHAYATHI REP.BY
ITS SECRETARY GURUGU BELLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL
,PARVATHI PURAM MANYAM DISTRICT (VIZAYANAGRAM)
...CONTEMNOR(S):
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 pleased to punish the respondents/contemnors under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act for willfully, wantonly. and deliberately of violating the Order dated 6-10-2021 passed in W.P.No.38850
of 2018 in the interest of justice. and pass pleased to dispense with petitioner the filing of the /Original/Certified copy of the Order, dt.6-10-2021 passed in W.P.No.38850 of 2018 and take the CC NO
OF 2022 on file, and pass
Pleased to implead the proposed respondents as respondent No. 6 i.e.
existing 6th respondent and Replace the implead 6th respondent Namely smt. G Pydi thalli in CC.No. 70 of 2023 in WP No. 38850 of 2018 in IA.No. of 2023 and to pass pleased to grant leave to correct typographical mistake/s therein 6th respondents cause title from "6. The Sri P V V Mohan Kumar the mandal parishad development officer (MPDO) Mathalabpeta Village Sarubujjili mandal Srikakulam District ." instead of typing it as "6. Smt Pydi Thalli the mandal panshad development officer(MPDO) Gurugubilli Gramapanchayathi Gurugubelli Village and Mandal ,Parvathi puram manyam District" and pass
May be pleased to dispense with my personnel appearances in the C.C.No.70
of 2023 and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KRISHNA RAO M
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI
2. OMKAR D
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CONTEMPT CASE No.70 of 2023
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 complaining the wilful disobedience of the order dated 06.10.2021 in W.P.No.38850 of 2018 and batch passed by this Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the order of the Court is complied with.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also endorsed the same, but would submit that the order of the Court is not complied with within the time stipulated by the Court and, as such, the compliance is not in the true letter and spirit.
5. On careful perusal of the record, it reveals that admittedly there is delay in implementing the order of the Court in its true letter and spirit within time stipulated by the Court. In fact, this Court number of times advised the respondents to be more careful and conscious in implementing the orders of the Court within the time stipulated. However, it appears that there is no change in the attitude of the officers. In the present case also admittedly there is delay. When this Court asked the respondents who are present before this
Court about the delay occurred in implementing the orders of the Court, they tendered their unconditional apology.
6. Taking into consideration of the unconditional apology tendered by them as bonafide, this Court intends to take lenient view against them in this contempt case to meet the ends of justice.
7. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed.
8. It is made it clear that the respondents shall be more careful and vigilant in implementing the orders of this Court in its true letter and spirit in future.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date: 06.03.2026 JLV
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CONTEMPT CASE No.70 of 2023
Dt.06.03.2026 JLV