A contempt petition filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging disobedience of a prior order was dismissed because it failed to show the contemnors' names in person, violating procedural requirements.
Contempt Case No. 1345 of 2023 was dismissed for not naming contemnors; liberty to file fresh contempt allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AWIARAVATI
MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
/Cl
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1345 OF 2023
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 punish the respondent authorities by invoking the provisions of the Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of court Act, 1971 by taking appropriate steps as per the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 in accordance with law, for willful, wanton and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 5.12.2022 W.P. No. 35463 of 2018
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
r
7. TELLA RAVI KUMAR, COMMISSIONER The Nagara Panchayat Represented by its Commissioner, Addanki, Prakasam District. '
8. The Nagara Panchayat, Represented by its Commissioner Addanki Prakasam District.
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT NO’S. 1 to 4, 6,8 to 12 are formal parties
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to discharge the petitioner Respondent No. 3 from the array of respondent in the Contempt Case No. 1345 of 2023
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K V ADIPKA CHOWDARY
Counsel for the Respondent 1, 3, 5, 6: Sri NARASIMHA REDDY. G
Counsel for the Respondent 2: Sri P SUBASH
Counsel for the Respondent 4: Sri V R REDDY KOVVURI
Counsel for the Respondent 8: Sri MANOHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent 9,11.12: Sri KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondent No.7: NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CONTEMPT CASE NO.1345 OF 2023
ORDER:
1. This contempt has been filed without showing the contemnors by name in person. As such, this Contempt Case is
liable to be dismissed.
petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh Contempt if so advised.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- K.TATA RAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY// SE^fiDN OFFICER
13.One CC to Sri K V ADITYA CHOWDARY Advocate [OPUC] 14. One CC to Sri NARASIMHA REDDY. G Advocate [OPUC]
15.One CC to Sri P SUBASH Advocate [OPUC]
16.One CC to Sri V R REDDY KOVVURI Advocate [OPUC]
17.One CC to Sri MANOHAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 18. One CC to Sri KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Advocate [OPUC] 19. Two CD Copies RAM
HIGH COURT
DATED: 09/10/2023
ORDER
CC.No.1345 of 2023
'& ">4;;
1
CONTEMPT CASE IS DISMISSED
k
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a contempt petition filed without naming specific contemnors is maintainable.
Whether the High Court can dismiss a contempt case for non-compliance with the requirement of identifying the contemnors.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Darna Haribabu (DIED), S/o. Krishnaiah
Dama Rambabu, S/o. Seshagiri
The State Of Andhra Pradesh
The District Collector, Prakasam District
Ravi Cheemalapati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
