Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/1982/2022 of BYRAPANENI NARESH Vs VIVEK YADAV on 4 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1982/2022 Between: 1. BYRAPANENI NARESH, S/O SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS,
APHC010310572022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1982/2022
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. BYRAPANENI NARESH, S/O SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC.ADVOCATE, R/O D.NO.8-49, PERECHARLA, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. BYRAPANENI RAMESH KUMAR,, S/O SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.8-50, PERECHARLA, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. BYRAPANENI VENKATA RAO,, S/O VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O D.NO. 1-116, PERECHARLA, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. VIVEK YADAV, I.A.S., OCC.- DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AT GUNTUR.
2. S BHASKAR REDDY, OCC.REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. G KARUNA KUMAR, OCC.TAHASILDAR, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...CONTEMNOR(S):
NJS,J C.C No.1982 of 2022
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. UPENDRA CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. NARASIMHA REDDY. G . L
NJS,J C.C No.1982 of 2022
The Court made the following Order:
No representation on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. G L Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, who made submissions with reference to the reply-affidavit and the material enclosed to it.
3. Drawing the attention of this Court to the endorsement dated 09.03.2022, the learned counsel submits that in compliance with the orders passed in the writ petition, the reasons for rejection of the petitioners application was intimated through the said endorsement.
4. Perusing the said endorsement, this Court is inclined to close the contempt case.
5. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________
JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:05.03.2026 Ksj