Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/1572/2026 of GANTLA RAMARAO Vs SMT VIJAYA KRISHNAN IAS on 1 November 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1572/2026 Between: 1. GANTLA RAMARAO, OCC FARMER, RESIDENT OF 2 DESAPATRUNIPALEM, PARAVADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 1. SMT VIJAYA KRISHNAN IAS, Occ District, At
APHC010182292026
IN THE
MONDAY, T
THE HONOURAB
CONT
Between:
1. GANTLA RAMARAO,
OCC FARMER,
DESAPATRUNIPALEM
DISTRICT.
1. SMT VIJAYA KRISH
District, At Anakapalle
Petition under Section
that in the circumstances s
be pleased to pleased to p
Contempt of Courts Act for
final orders dt 09.01.2024 in
Counsel for the Petitioner
1.T V SRI DEVI
Counsel for the Contemno
1.K M KRISHNA REDDY
The Court made the follow
C.C.N
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026
PRESENT
BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPA
TEMPT CASE NO: 1572/2026
S/O LATE MULAYYA AGED ABOUT 7
RESIDENT OF 2-48/1, GVMC 55
M, PARAVADA MANDAL, VISAKHA
...PE
AND
HNAN IAS, Occ- District Collector, A
e-531001.
...CON
ns 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 19
tated in the affidavit file herein the High punish the respondent under section 10
r deliberately disobeying and not implem n W.P.No.537 of 2024 and pass r:
or:
Y
wing:
RC,J
No.1572 of 2026
H
ATI
74 YEARS,
5 WARD,
APATNAM
TITIONER
Anakapalle
NTEMNOR
971 praying
Court may
0 and 12 of
menting the
RC,J
C.C.No.1572 of 2026
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
Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent, submitted that the order, disobedience of which is complained of in this Contempt Case, has duly been complied with and hence nothing remains for adjudication in this Contempt Case and the same may be closed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner though admitted regarding compliance of the orders submitted that there is delay in compliance of the orders and therefore, the respondent no.1 is liable for punishment under contempt of Courts Act.
3. In reply, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the delay is only due to administrative reasons and the same is neither willful nor deliberate.
4. It is fairly settled that disobedience must be conscious, intentional, and accompanied by full knowledge of the order and the actual ability to comply. Therefore, mere delay in complying the orders alone would not sufficient to punish the contemnor.
5. In the instant case, the delay occurred is found neither willful nor deliberate. Therefore, since the order complained of has duly been complied, this contempt case can be closed.
RC,J C.C.No.1572 of 2026
6. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
2ND November, 2026
RR