The High Court held that the State Government and its officers willfully disobeyed prior orders mandating appointment of health assistant candidates. Respondents were punished with fines or imprisonment, suspended pending appeal.
Respondents 1-3 fined Rs. 2,000 each; Respondent 4 imprisoned 6 months and fined Rs. 2,000. Order suspended for 6 weeks.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT ^
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE NOS:
1527,1792,20072008.2114.2115.2116.2117.2118,2120.2240.2247,2251,225 2,2257.2294.2296.2373.2417.2517.2518.2519.2523.2525.2539.2752,2753,27 54.2755.2796.2798.2882.2932.2933.2950.3051.3053.3054.3064.3130,3131,3 167.3213.3278.3279.3286.3296.3298.3303.3639.4103.4395,4399,4511.4513, 4529.4530.4532.4534.4535.4536.4548.4549.4623.5098.5101,5245,5250,558 8.5589.5923.5995.5998 OF 2023
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1527 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Honourable Court dated 28-11-2022 in W.P.No. 38433 of 2022 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
2
A
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
3
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1792 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to issue summons under Sections 10 to 12, 14, 15 and 16 of Contempt of Act and 17 of 1971, to punish the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful violation of orders of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.No.39726 of 2022 dated 8.02.2023.
Between:
4
I
...Petitioner/s
AND
5
...Respondent/s
...Proposed Respondent/s
(Respondents Nos.5 and 6 leave granted as per courtorderandon Dt.17.03.2023., vide I.A. No.1 of 2023 in C.C No.1792of 2023)
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. Bokka SatyanarayanaKamla
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2007 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to pleased to Punish all the Respondentsforwillful
6
■r j
and wantonly disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.41840 of 2022, dated 27-12-2022
Between:
Ethakota Venkateswarao, S/o. Thkkiyya, Hindu, aged about 42 Years, R/o. H.No. 4-4/2, Sakuru Post AND Village, AmalapuramMandal,East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Ch Naga Mehar Baba
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
7
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2008 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to pleased to Punish the Respondentsforwillfuland wantonly disobedience of the orders of this Honourable Court in W.P.No.1346 of 2023, dated 23-01-2023
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
8
I
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. CH Naga Mehar Baba
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2114 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 15-02-2023 in W.P.No. 3725 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
9
...Petitioners
AND
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2115 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 07-02-2023 in W.P.No. 2900 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
10
^ ;
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
11
w
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2116 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 07-02-2023 in W.P.No. 2904of2023under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
12
Q;
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2117 OF 2023
Petition under Sections TO to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfileherein theHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 15-02-2023 in W.P.No. 3709 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act ^
13
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
14
n
Kakinada District (Old East Godavari District
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2118 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Honourable Court dated 13-12-2022 in W.P.No. 40103 of 2022 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Gubbala Srinivas, S/o.Naga Bushnam, aged about 48 years,Occ:Un employee, R/o.D.No.4-135, Thota Meraka Visweswarayapuram Post Malkipuram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh Presently Dr.Ambedkar Konaseema District.
...Petitioner
AND
15
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner; Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2120 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 15-02-2023 in W.P.No. 39956 of 2022 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
16
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2240 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh
17
Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 31-01-2023 in W.P.No. 2183 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Nargana Ramu, S/o.Gopalam, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Occ: Un employee, R/o.D.No.3-74/b, Gavallagudem PenumanchiliMandalWest Godavari District.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2247 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh
18
P:
Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 15-02-2023 in W.P.No. 3710 of 2023 under Set. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
19
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2251 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Honourable Court dated 23-02-2023 in W.P.No. 4504 of 2022 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Kakarpalli Gangadhara Srinivasa Rao, S/o.late Maridayya, Hindu, aged about 51 years, Occ; Un employee, R/o. H.No.4-162/3,V.VS.Collee Backside, U Kothapalli, East Godavari District.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
20
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2252 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 20-01-2023 in W.P.No. 4029 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Vasamsetti Krishnarjun, S/o. Suryanarayana Hindu, aged about 55 years, Occ: Un employee R/o.D.No.69-7-10, Near Kankadurga Temple, Rajendra Nagar, Kakinada ,East Godavari Distrcit, AndhraPradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
21
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2257 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 23-02-2023 in W.P.No. 4442 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
22
C-^r.
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2294 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to Punish the Respondents forwillfulandwantonly disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.3869 of 2023, dated 16-02-2023
23
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
24
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. CH Naga Mehar Baba
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2296 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to Punish the Respondents for willful and wantonly disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W,P.No.3865 of 2023, dated 16-02-2023
Between:
25
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. CH Naga Mehar Baba
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
26
m
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2373 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to Punish the Respondents for willful and wantonly disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.4310 of 2023, dated 22-02-2023
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
27
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. CH Naga Mehar Baba
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2417 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 15-02-2023 in W.P.No. 3710 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
28
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2517 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 23-02-2023 in W.P.No. 4444 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
29
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
30
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2518 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 02-01-2023 in W.P.No. 42507 of 2022 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
31
Kakinada District (Old East Godavari District
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2519 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 23-02-2023 in W.P.No. 4440 of 2022 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Kudupudi Maharaj Kumar, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Murthy Hindu, aged about 48 years, Occ: Un employee R/o.D.No.5-8,Vaidyanagar-3, Backside 3'^'^ APSP, Vakalapudi, Kakinada District.
...Petitioner
AND
32
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2523 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to Punish the Respondents for willful and wantonly disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.5647 of 2023, dated 07-03-2023
Between:
...Petitioners
33
t
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. CH Naga Mehar Baba
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalii Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2525 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to Punish the Respondents for willful and wantonly disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.5244 of 2023, dated 02-03-2023
Between:
34
r i
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. CH Naga Mehar Baba
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
35
( )
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2539 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to Punish the Respondents for willful and wantonly disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.4918 of 2023, dated 28-02-2023
Between:
Divili Varaha Nageswara Rao, S/o. Veerabrahma Charyulu, Hindu, aged about 44 Years, R/o. D.No.6-100, Gowthuvari Veedhi, Kirlampudi Village, Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District,AndhraPradesh
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. CH Naga Mehar Baba
36
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapaili Ramesh
-ri;
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2752 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 28-11-2022 in W.P.No. 38500of2022under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
37
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2753 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 01-03-2023 in W.P.No. 10611 of 2022 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
38
mi' .-1
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapaili Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2754 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 15-02-2023 in W.P.No. 3710 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Vadaparthi Venkateswarlu, S/o.Brahmayya Hindu, aged about 49 years, Occ: Un employee R/o.D.No. 34-6-5/1,RamachandrapuramManda Muchimilli Village, Sivalayam Street, Kakinada, KakindadaDistrict.
...Petitioner
AND
/1 o
39
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2755 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Honourable Court dated 10-03-2023 in W.P.No. 5999 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
40
o
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2796 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 07-02-2023 in W.P.No. 2899 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Tadi Vasantha Rao, S/o. China Narasimha Murthy Aged about 52 years, R/o.D.No.4-34, Sankaraguptam Village, MallipuramMandal,East Godavari District
...Petitioner
AND
41
r
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2798 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 13-4-2023 in W.P.No. 9013 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
42
'5:‘-
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2882 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders
43
u
of this Hon'ble Court dated 16-03-2023 in W.P.No. 6359of2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
44
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2932 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 16-03-2023 in W.P.No. 6359 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
P.Purushottam, S/o.Bhadra Rao Hindu, aged about 47 years, Occ: Un employee R/o.D.No.4-11, Brahimn Street, Near Shivlayam, PedapudiMandal, Peddada, East Godavari District.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
45
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2933 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 07-02-2023 in W.P.No. 2904 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Godapatti Moses, S/o.Yeshayya Hindu, aged about 50 years, Occ: Un employee R/o.D.No.1-95/2, Surya Veedhi, Velampalem, RamachandrapuramMandal, Dr.B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema DistrictOld E.G.District.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
46
6
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapaili Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2950 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 16-03-2023 in W.P.No. 6359 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Burri Raja Mohan Rao, S/o.B.Erakayya Hindu, aged about 49 years, Occ: Un employee, R/o.D.No.9-18,Srinivasa Colony, Ramanayyapet, Kakinada, Kakinada District. Old East Godavari District.
...Petitioner
AND
47
...Respondents
. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V PrabhakaraRao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3051 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 24-02-2023 in W.P.No. 4617 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Kunche Naga Babu, S/o.Surya Rao Hindu, aged about 45 years, Occ: Un employee, R/o.D.No.2-284, Banduladoddi Street, Ramachodavaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District, AndhraPradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
48
V J
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. VV Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3053 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfile herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of his Hon'ble Court dated 22-02-2023 in W.P. No. 4297 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
49
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3054 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 23-02-2023 in W.P.No. 4440 of 2022 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Thotakura Ramanna, S/o.Satyanarayana Hindu, aged about49years, Occ: Un employee R/o.D.No.1-137, DhivanamVari Street, Kapileswarapuram, KapileswarauramMandal, East GodavariDistrict.
...Petitioner
AND
50
f:
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3064 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 28-02-2023 in W.P.No. 4916 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
51
f
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3130 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to Punish the Respondents forwillfulanddeliberate disobedience of the orders of this Honourable Court in W.P.No.7880 of 2023, dated 29-03-2023
Between:
52
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. CH Naga Mehar Baba
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3131 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to Punish the Respondents forwillfulanddeliberate disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court inW.P.No.8377of2023, dated 04-04-2023
Between:
53
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. CH Naga Mehar Baba
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
54
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3167 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 16-03-2023 in W.P.No. 6359 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Medapati Bhavani Prasad, S/o. Varahalu Hindu, aged about 46 years, Occ: Un employee R/o.D.No.6-44-1,Adarsa Colony, Tuni, Kakinada District, Old East Godavari District.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
55
%
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3213 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 29-03-2023 in W.P.No. 7850 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
56
(P
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3278 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Honourable Court dated 01-03-2023 in W.P.No. 5039 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
57
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3279 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders
58
#;
of this Hon'ble Court dated 01-03-2023 in W.P.No. 5046 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
59
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3286 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 29-03-2023 in W.P.No. 7850 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Kakada Chitibabu, S/o.Kakada Seshuvudu Hindu, aged about 44 years Occ: Un employee R/o.D.No.6-4-55/1,lndhiranagar, Pithapuram, Kakinada District. Old East Godavari District.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalii Ramesh
60
#
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3296 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Honourable Court dated 01-03-2023 in W.P.No.5042of2023under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
61
%
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3298 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 23-02-2023 in W.P.No. 4440 of 2022 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Tadi Haribabu, S/o. Tadi Mohana Rao Hindu, aged about42years, Occ: Un employee R/o. D.No.4-137, Unduru Village, Ramaraopet, Samalakota, Kakinada District.
...Petitioner
AND
62
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3303 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 03-05-2023 in W.P.No. 11611 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioner
AND
63
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3639 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 23-02-2023 in W.P.No. 4444 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Ilia Naga Rama Krishna, S/o. Prakasham, Hindu, agedabout45years, Occ; Un employee R/o. D.No. 11-73, M.K.Nagar, Vanapalli,Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.
...Petitioner
AND
64
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsellor the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalii Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4103 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereinthe High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 25-04-2023 in W.P.No. 10391 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
65
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4395 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to Punish the Respondents forwillfulanddeliberate disobedience of the orders of this Honourable Court in W.P.No.13094 of 2023, dated 12-05-2023
Between:
Miriyala Suresh Kumar, S/o. Moola Swamy, Hindu, aged about 47 Years, R/o. Flat No.D2, 4th floor, Lakshmi Enclave, FCI Colony, Boat Club back side street, Ramanayyapeta, East GodavariDistrict,Andhra Pradesh.
66
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. CH Naga Mehar Baba
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalii Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4399 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to Punish the Respondents forwillfulanddeliberate disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court inW.P.No. 12340of2023, dated 09-05-2023
Between:
67
Kamana Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Sree Ramulu, Hindu, agedabout45 Years, R/o. D.No.4-89, Main Road, Marlava Village and post, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. CH Naga Mehar Baba
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4511 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 23-02-2023 in W.P.No. 4440of2022 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
68
A K
Between:
Pediredia Nageswara Rao, S/o. Manikyam Hindu, aged about 45 years, Occ: Un employee R/o. 1-23,GORSA, U.Kothapalli Mandal, Kakinada District
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4513 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 03-05-2023 in W.P.No. 11606 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
69
Between:
Pasagadugula Giri Babu, S/o.Tatabbai Hindu, aged about 52years, Occ: Un employee, R/o.D.No. 1-26, Krishnadevipeta, Golugonda Mandal, Anakapalli Dist, Old Visakhapatnam District.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4529 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 10-02-2023 in W.P.No. 3320 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
70
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalii Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4530 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh
71
Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 29-03-2023 in W.P.No. 7850 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
72
f
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4532 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Honourable Court dated 15-02-2023 in W.P.No. 39982 of 2022 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
73
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. VV Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4534 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 08-02-2023 in W.P.No. 3040 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Pichika Peda Vera Venkata Bulliya, S/o.Gandhi Hindu, aged about 46 years, Occ: Un employee, R/o.D.No.6240/1, Erla Cheruvu, Near M.P.P.School, Mamidikuduru Village and Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
74
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner; Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4535 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 14-02-2023 in W.P.No. 3604 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Balia Raju, S/o. Ganapathi Hindu, aged about 42 years, R/o.D.No.141/a,Magallamuru Village, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
75
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. VV Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4536 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 02-01-2023 in W.P.No. 42507 of 2022 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
76
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4548 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Honourable Court dated 15-02-2023 in W.P.No.39982of2022under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Ilia Srinivas, S/o. Seshagiri Rao Hindu, aged about 46years, Occ: Un employee R/o. D.No.2-22,Kurakallapalli Village, Rayavaram Mandal, Kuramapuram Post, East Godavari District. PresentlyDr.Br.Ambedkar Konaseema District.
...Petitioners
77
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. VV Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapaili Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4549 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfile herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 29-03-2023 in W.P.No. 7850 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Nanaparapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana Hindu, aged about 49 years, Occ: Uri employee R/o.D.No.31-2-8/8A, Bradipeta, Pydarao Gari Veedhi, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District.
...Petitioners
78
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4623 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Honourable Court dated 08-02-2023 in W.P.No.3035of2023under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Chellingi Jagan, S/o. Satyanarayana Hindu, aged about43years,R/o D.No .3 -109,Ayyavaritippa, Gudimellanka Village, MalikipuramMandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
79
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5098 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 07-02-2023 in W.P.No. 2899 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
80
ThumalapalliVillage.AllavaramMandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5101 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 07-02-2023 in W.P.No. 2875 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
81
...Petitioners
AND
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5245 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders
82
of this Hon'ble Court dated 10-08-2023 in W.P.No. 20406 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Yallapu Siva, S/o.Rambabu Hindu, aged about 43 years, Occ: Un employee, R/o.D.No. 2-12-9/20A, Peddapuram. Kakinada District,Old East Godavari District
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5250 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders
83
of this Honourable Court dated 24-02-2023 in W.P.No. 4304 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Pallisyamasundara Kumar, S/o.Krupanandam Hindu^ aged about 56 years, Occ: Un employee, R/o.D.No. 3-17,Panchayathi Canal Road, Podalada Village, RazoluMandal, East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5588 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High
84
Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 16-03-2023 in W.P.No. 6359 of 2023 under So... 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Govvala Satyanarayana, S/o.Veeranna Hindu, aged about 52 years, Occ: Un employee R/o.Ranupalli (PO) Amalapuram Mandal Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. Old East Godavari District..
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5589 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
85
Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 24-02-2023 in W.P.No. 4304 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Bonam Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana Hindu, agedabout49 years, Occ: Un employee, R/o.D.No. 1-89, Sevalayam Veedhi, Vanapalli Village Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District,Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5923 OF 2023
86
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 07-02-2023 in W.P.No. 2875 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Danduprolu Srinivasa Rao, S/ovenkanna Aged About 47 years Occ: Un Employee R/o D No 23134 Frezer Peta 10th Street G G H Backside Kakinada Kakinada District.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5995 OF 2023
87
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 07-02-2023 in W.P.No. 2875 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
88
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5998 OF 2023
Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfilehereintheHigh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents forviolationoftheorders of this Hon'ble Court dated 02-03-2023 in W.P.No. 5143 of 2023 under Sec. 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act
Between:
Balia Venkata Siva Nageswara Rao, S/o.late Veeraju Hindu, agedat 48 years, Occ: Un employee R/o.D.No.6-24-1,Gowridevi Temple Street, Tuni, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh
...Petitioner
AND
89
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V V Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh
Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE Nos.1527. 1792. 2007, 2008. 2114, 2115. 2116. 2117, 2118, 2120, 2240, 2247, 2251. 2252, 2257.2294, 2296. 2373, 2417, 2517, 2518, 2519, 2523. 2525. 2539, 2752. 2753, 2754, 2755, 2796, 2798, 2882.2932. 2933, 2950. 3051. 3053. 3054, 3064. 3130. 3131, 3167, 3213, 3278, 3279, 3286, 3296, 3298. 3303, 3639. 4103. 4395, 4399, 4511, 4513, 4529. 4530. 4532. 4534. 4535, 4536. 4548. 4549, 4623, 5098, 5101, 5245. 5250. 5588, 5589. 5923. 5995. 5998 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:-
- As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is inter-related, all these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of through this common order. C.C.No.2007 of 2023 is taken as a leading case.
- This Contempt Case has been filed complaining the alleged willful disobedience in implementing the order dated 28.11.2022 by this Court in V/.P.No.38433 of 2022.
- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in pursuance of Lr.Rc.No.091/E4-A/2022 dated 16.07.2022, the Government issued Notification dated 20.07.2022 for recruitment to the posts of 2324 Multipurpose Health Assistants (Male) in all the districts along
NV,J CCNo.2007 of 2023
with some other paramedical posts. As per the notification, the qualification required is a pass in S.S.C. With referencetothesaid notification, some of the candidates invoked the remedies available by approaching the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, but the O.As filed by them weredismissed. Aggrieved by the same, a batch of Writ Petitions videW.P.No.15107 of 2002 etc., were filed. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by an order dated 11.09.2003 disposed of the matters, with a direction to the Government to prepare the select list of candidates in accordancewiththerules who possessed S.S.C and Diploma Certificates either from Government institutions or four private institutions and issue appointment orders, within a period of four weeks, duly terminating the services of those candidates, who were appointed by virtue of the interim orders passed by the High Court. The saidorderwas carried in appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein by an interim order, dated 06.02.2004 in S.L.P(C) No. 1925-44/2004,the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue directionsnottomake any fresh appointments in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court in W.P.No.15107 of 2002 and that the appointmentswhich
NV,J CCNo.2007 of 2023
have already been made shall not be disturbed. As there is an acute need to fill up the posts of MPHAs (Male), the Government of Andhra Pradesh filed an interlocutory application in the batch of S.L.Ps mentioned supra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by an order, dated 07.08.2006 was pleased to vacate the orders granting stay and permitted the State Government to fill up the vacanciesfromthe selected candidates, subject to the outcome of Special Leave Petitions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also recordedthestatement made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the candidates who were already appointed shall not be reverted. Pursuanttothe orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 07.08.2006, Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1234, dated 15.09.2006 for filling up of the posts of MPHAs (Male). Though the Government is permitted to fill up the posts from the merit list of 2002 written examination, it did not fill up the posts from the merit list and made appointments, as per its whims and fancies.
- The S.L.Ps preferred by the Government of Andhra Pradesh were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by judgment dated 09.08.2011 and thus the orders passed by the Division Bench, dated 11.09.2003 in W.P.No.15107 of 2002 and batch were
NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
confirmed. In view of the orders of dismissal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the persons who were appointedintermsof G.O.Rt.No.1234, dated 15.09.20G6 as also by virtueoftheinterim orders passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad based on Intermediate as educational qualificationwere terminated as per Government Orders in G.O.Rt.No.273, dated 16.02.2012. A fresh list was drawn as per the orders in W.P.No.15107 of 2002. The candidates whose services were terminated by virtue of G.O.Rt.No.273, dated 16.02.2012 made representations to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which in turn, appointed a group of Ministers to take action on the said representations: On the advice of group of Ministers, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.1207, dated 09.10.2013 to take back all the 1200 MPHAs (Male). Aggrieved by the said action of the Government in issuing G.O.Rt.No.1207,dated 09.10.20213, some of the candidates filed O.A.No.7441/2013etc. before the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking suspension of the G.O.Rt.No.1207, dated 09.10.2013. By an order dated 28.11.2013, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad dismissed O.A.No.7441/2013 and batch
NV,J
CC No.2007 of 2023
against which, the petitioners therein filed W.P.No.38060of2013 etc., before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
- The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to grant stay of appointments made pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.1207, dated09.10.2013. Seeking to vacate the said interim orders, the respondentstherein filed a vacate stay petition vide W.P.M.P.No.1015/2014. After hearing the parties concerned, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to issue directions dated 15.09.2015 to the respondentauthorities therein to make efforts to implement the judgment of High Court, dated 09.11.2003 in W.P.No.15107 of 2002 and batch.
- Pursuant to the above referred orders, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo No.7342/G2/2015-08, dated 24.05.2016, the relevant portion of which reads asfollows:-
"The attention of the Director of Public Health & Family Welfare, A.P. Hyderabad is invited to the referencescited and the Government after careful examination of the request in the reference 3rd cited hereby direct the DirectorofPublic Health & Family Welfare A.P., 5 Hyderabad to take necessary action as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court, dated 15.09.2015 in W.P.No.38060 of 2013, 3178/2014& 2504/2015 to appoint the candidates who are remainedin
NV,J CCNo.2007 of 2023
the Common Seniority List (SSC & Inter) prepared as per the orders of High Court/Apex Court after filling up ofthe2324 posts of MPHA(M) and having merit over the individuals appointed through G.O.Rt.No.1207, HM&FW Dept, dated 09.10.2013 at first instance by terminating the individualsif necessary, those appointed in G.O.Ms.No.1207, dated 09.10.2013 and having lesser merit among the individuals who appointed so and thereafter, keeping in view ofthe observation of the Hon’ble High Court, take action to accommodate such terminated individuals as per theirmerit subject to availability of vacancies of MPHA(M) with the prior permission of Government only after completion of theabove task.
- Upon hearing both the parties, W.P.Nos. 17665 of 2021 were disposed of by this Court on 27.12.2021 with the followingdirections:
i) The respondents shall consider cases of the Writ Petitioners for appointment as MPHAs within a periodof four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy ofthis order, in terms of Memo No.7342/G2/2015-8, dated 24.05.2016 based on their merit, if any candidate less meritorious than the Writ Petitioners are appointed;
NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
ii) If any of the Writ Petitioners have not submitted the relevant certificates/documents they should be called upon tosubmit the same by granting reasonable time of not less thanfour
iii) In the event of any genuine objection for consideringthecaseof any of the Writ Petitioners, they shall be notified the same by issuing appropriate notice/communication and afforded an opportunity before taking further action in the matter.
- The order challenged in the W.P.No.38433 of 2022 was passed on the basis of the similar orders passed in common judgment W.P.No.17665 of 2021 & batch.
.NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
- Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, pursuant to the common order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the Government issued Memo No.7342/G2/2015-8 dated 24.05.2016 directing the Director of Public Health & Family WelfareandallDistrict Medical Officers to implement the orders of this Court. Even then, the respondents did not appoint the petitioners as Multi Purpose Health Assistants though the candidates with lesser merit were appointed. Learned counsel would submit that, the respondentshadnointention to implement the orders of this Court and deliberately flouting the orders of this Court on one pretext or the other. The failure on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders of thisCourtwould amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon’ble Court and, therefore, liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Complaining the same, the petitioners had filed the present Contempt Case.
- Respondent No.2 - Director of Public Health and Family Welfare filed counter affidavits in ail the contempt cases, admitting about non-compliance of numerous orders passed by this Court caused due to administrative delay and tendered unconditional apology to this Court for non-compliance/non-implementationofthe
m.
NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
orders. In Paragraph No. 17, it is submitted that, Respondent No.2 directed the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Vijayawada to take immediate steps to again re-considerthecases of the petitioners in terms of the orders passed inW.P.No. 17665of 2021. Immediately, the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Vijayawada issued proceedings dated 30.08.2023 directing the 4*^^ respondent to re-consider the cases of the petitioners immediately for complying the orders of this Court. Accordingly, the 4^^^ respondent vide proceedings dated 02.09.2023 issued notices and the petitioners attended the office of the 4*^ respondent on 13.09.2023. The 4*^ respondent explained to the petitionersabout the difficulty in considering their cases for appointment to the post of MPHA due to pendency of W.P.No.21 of 2022 and alsoinviewof the services related to communicable and non-communicable diseases. It is submitted that the 4**^ respondent being the appointing authority re-considered the issue and issued speakingordersvide proceedings dated 19.09.2023 informing about pendencyofthewrit petition and in view of no necessity of work for the MPHA at present, as such the candidature for appointment as MPHA isnotfeasible. Further, it was informed that the cases of the petitionerswouldbe
NV,J CCNo.2007 of 2023
10
considered in future basing on the necessity of work of MPHA as per their merit and as per rules, as such, prayed to close the Contempt Case against Respondent No.2.
NV,J CCNo.2007 of 2023
11
NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
12
- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedcounsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
- The Contempt of Court is defined under Section 2(a) as follows; "contempt of court means, civil contempt or criminal contempt". Whereas clause (b) of Section 2 defines Civil Contempt as “willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order. writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
- The Contempt jurisdiction is not conferred on the Subordinate Courts and it is only conferred on the Court of record, ih view of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. According to it, the High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court, including the power to punish for contemptofitself. The jurisdiction of contempt is independent jurisdiction of its original nature. Therefore, this Court is competent to exercise such power to punish a person, who is guilty of contempt and this jurisdiction is
NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
13
enjoyed by Courts, is only for the purpose of upholding the jurisdiction of the judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Court must not react by the emotion, but must act judicially. Contempt proceedings are intended to ensure compliance of the orders of the Court and strict adherence of rule of law. Once, the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, the Court shall initiate action, uninfluenced by the natureofdirectionina pending lis before the Court vide judgment in Priya Gupta and others vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others^), Contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for the purpose of upholding the majesty of judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Courtsmustnotbe hyper sensitive or swang by emotions, but must act judicially (Vide: Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal vs. SK. Monobbor Hossain^).
^ 2012 (12) SCALE 289 ^ (2012)3 SCALE 534
NV,J CCNo.2007 of 2023
14
transient effect on the system and/or the person concernedand is likely to wither by the passage of time while the other causes permanent damage to the institution and administrationofJustice (Vide: Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and others^).
- On perusal of the entire material placed before this Court along with the counter affidavit, it is observed that the respondents neither initiated proper steps for implementation oftheordersofthis Court, nor kept quiet without there being any appointments. In fact. the respondents are appointing other than the writ petitioners in the existing vacancies in utter disobedience of the ordersofthisCourt.
- The petitioners filed appointment orders issued by the respondents, pending contempt cases, substantiatingtheirclaimthat others have been. appointed on the guise that other persons are meritorious candidates, denying the right of the petitionersherein.
^ (2011) 6 SCALE 220
NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
15
- On perusal of the counter affidavit, it appears that, keeping the orders of this Court aside. Respondent No.4 took adecisiononhis own that, there was no necessity to appoint the MPHAsinviewof the establishment of Village Secretariats since most of the field activities like MCH Services, Immunization, NCD screening were being carried out by ANMs in each village secretariat, thereby. Respondent No.4 is being forced to appoint the petitioners by virtue of orders of this Hon’ble Court. Respondent No.4 also opined that there would be huge financial loss to the Government, if the petitioners are appointed. Such callous attitude ofthe officer in disobeying the orders of this Hon’ble Court, takinghisowndecisions is highly reprehensible and it is also contrary tothemethodand manner, as directed by this Court. But, without followingthemethod
NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
16
and manner as directed by this Court and without undertaking any exercise to draw the merit list. Respondent No.4 acted as per her whims and fancies to favour the interested candidates,which is nothing but willful disobedience of the orders of thisCourt.
NV,J CCNo.2007 of 2023
17
order is contrary to law, they are at liberty to file appropriate appeal before the appellate authority. But, without preferring an appeal, the respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and give different meaning to the order passed by the Court, which is sought .to be implemented, as directed by this Court. In fact. RespondentNo.4 neither preferred writ appeal nor filed any vacate petition and also did not file any petition for modification either for exemption of time or for reduction of any liability amount to be paid.Suchactofthe respondent/contemnor is illegal in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner, Karnataka HousingBoard
vs. C. Muddaiah^, wherein, it is held as follows:
^ (2007) 7 see 689
NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
18
NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
19
contention of the appellant-Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected.
- The same view is expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others^,wherethe Court held that, while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whethertheearlierdecision which has received its finality had been complied withornot. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier decision If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is. wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongnessoftheorder cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrongtheorder has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or ® (2004) 7 see 261
NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
20
delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.
^ AIR 1961 see 221
NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
21
Though undoubtedly proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C have a punitive aspect - as is evident from the contemnor being liable to be ordered to be detained in civil prison, they are in substance designed to effect the enforcement of or to executetheorder.This is clearly brought out by their identity with the procedure prescribed by Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C for execution of a decree for permanent injunction. No doubt the State Government not being a natural person could not be ordered to be detained in civil prison, On the analogy of Corporations: for which special provision is made inOrderXXXIXRule V C.P.C, but beyond that, both when a decree for a permanent injunction is executed and when an order of temporary injunction is enforced the liability of the State Government to be proceeded against appears to us clear.
NV,J CCNo.2007 of 2023
22
according to him/her the same is not legally tenableand such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the Higher Court. Assuming that a question arose about impossibility of complying with the order, if that was the case, atleast RespondentNo.2couldhave done was to assail correctness of the order/judgment before the Higher Court. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the orderwhich in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approachtheCourtthat passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt.
NV,J CCNo.2007 of 2023
23
view against such person who caused serious damage to the judicial institution itself.
- On perusal of the counter affidavits/replies filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3, indicates that they instructed RespondentNo.4aboutthe orders of this Hon’ble Court and for implementation of the same, since Respondent No.4 is the-appointing authority. As such,therehavenot violated nor disobeyed the orders of this Court, as such they are not liable for contempt, since they have taken all steps for implementation of the orders of the Hon’ble Court and pressed for closure of contempt proceedings against them. From the above analysis, this Court finds that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 being highest statutoryauthoritiesand Head of Department, they discharged their duties in short of compliance of the orders of this Hon’ble Court. Once after receipt of orders of this Court, it is the prime and mandatory duty on the part of the respondents that thby collectively and individually are required to take all necessary steps to comply the orders of theCourtinLetterand Spirit and also in all respects. But, contrary to the said settled principle the acts and omissions of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are only'throwing the burden upon Respondent No.4 by issuing letters/proceedings,without taking required steps or without guiding Respondent No.4 is nothing
NV,J CC No.2007 of 2023
24
but violation and disregard towards the orders of this Court. Mere issuing proceedings instructing Respondent No.4 to comply the orders is not compliance. Being authorities, having knowledge about orders of this Court, they shall under statutory obligation to take all steps and also see that the orders of this Court should be implemented with concerned authority. In the instant case, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 neither acted as statutory higher authorities nor taken any steps with due indulgence in compliance of the orders of this Court, except through instructions the respondent for implementation of the orders of this Court. Hence, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are also liable for contempt.
NV,J CCNo.2007 of 2023
25
- As discussed above, and in view of the findings recorded by this Court in the above paragraphs, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are liable for I punishment as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and thereby they are punished to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousands Only) and Respondent No^4 - N. Shanti Prabha, District Medical & Health Officer, Kakinada is liable for punishment as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in all the contempt cases, and thereby she is punished sentencing her to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months (06) and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
NV,J CCNo.2007 of 2023
26
SD/-K.TATA RAO
•\ \
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
91
92
16.The Registgrar(Judicial),High Court of A.P., Amaravathi.
17.One CC to Sri. Bokka Satyanarayana Kamala Advocate [OPUC]
19.One CC to Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh Advocate [OPUC]
20.One CC to Sri. Ch Naga Mehar Baba Advocate [OPUC]
21.Three CD Copies
SAM
(Notice: AH Respondents to be sent via RPAD)
93
HIGH COURT
SAM
DATED:08/07/2024
ORDER
CC.Nos.1527,1792,2007,2008,2114,2115,2116,2117, 2118,2120,2240,2247,2251,2252,2257,2294,2296,2373, 2417,2517,2518,2519,2523,2525,2539,2752,2753,2754, 2755,2796,2798,2882,2932,2933,2950,3051,3053,3054, 3064,3130,3131,3167,3213,3278,3279,3286,3296,3298, 3303,3639,4103,4395,4399,4511,4513,4529,4530,4532, 4534,4535,4536,4548,4549,4623,5098,5101,5245, 5250,5588,5589,5923,5995,5998 of 2023
ALLOWING THESE CONTEMPT CASES
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Government of Andhra Pradesh willfully disobeyed the Court order in W.P.No.38433 of 2022 failing to appoint petitioners as MPHAs.
Whether Respondent No.4 is liable for contempt for not implementing orders and appointing other candidates.
Whether Respondents No.1 to 3 are liable for contempt for failing to ensure implementation of the Court order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Priya Gupta and others vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and othersReferred¶1256
Priya Gupta and others vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others
Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal vs. SK. Monobbor HossainReferred¶1256
Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal vs. SK. Monobbor Hossain
Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶1257,127
Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and others
Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. MuddaiahReferred¶1278
Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah
Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and othersReferred¶1287
Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others
The State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati KumarfReferred¶1291
The State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumarf
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Saiaboyina Raveendra Kumar
Seelam Venkataramana
Chintam Srinivasa Rao
Vegirouthu Ramachandra Rao
Vegiroutu R.K.Prasad
Saladi N.D.Sai Kishor
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
