Tupakula Subhramanyam, v. Sri a.Venkateswarlu

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Sept 2024CC/2655/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt case challenged the non-implementation of an order directing the Commissioner to allot land and follow specific procedure. The court found the plot was allotted despite rent fixation issues, citing that subsequent administrative action creates a fresh cause of action, permitting merit review but not via Section 12 contempt power. The case was closed without cost.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed without costs; pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

Tupakula Subhramanyam, Vs Sri a.Venkateswarlu — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV«W^

¶2

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER •t. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2655 OF 2024

¶7

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 contemnor/respondent under Contempt of Courts Act, for willful disobedience of orders passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 16.11.2023 in W.P. No.29631 of 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Tupakula Subhramanyam,, S/o. Late Venkaiah, Aged 42 years, R/o. D.No.141188-9, Naidu Kalava Katta, East Guduru, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri A.Venkateswarlu,, S/o. Not Known, Working as Commissioner Guduru Municipality, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

...CONTEMNORS

Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri. Ramakrishna Akurathi

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: N Ranga Reddy

¶18

(SC MC RSEEMA SPSR NLR)

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶20

¶21

APHC010240762024

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶23

[3331]

¶24

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶27

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2655/2024

¶28

Between:

¶29

Tupakula Subhramanyam ...PETITIONER

¶30

AND

¶31

Sri A Venkateswarlu ...CONTEMNOR

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶33

RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI

¶34

Counsel for the Contemnor:

¶35

N RANGA REDDY (SC MC RSEEMA SPSR NLR)

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

:: ORDER::

¶38

The above contempt case is filed complaining the non-implementat^ion

¶39

of order dated 16.11.2023 in W.P.No.29631 of 2023.

¶40

Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶41

W.P.No.29631 of 2023 was filed to declare the inaction of respondent

¶42

No.2 therein in considering the representations made^{bythepetitionerdated} I4.I1T2022, 30.12.2022 and 09.02.2023 respectively,^{forallotmentofland,as}

¶43

Page 2 of 4

¶44

SRSJ C.C.No.2655 of 2024

¶45

illegal and arbitrary. The writ petition was disposed of on 16.11.2023. The operative portion of order dated 16.11.2023 is extracted^herewith;

¶46

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Commissioner of respondent No.2 to place the representations made by the petitioner before the Council, if the land is vacant, by following the procedure, strictly in^{accordancewithlaw.} If the Council takes any decision, in accordance with^law,the same^shall be intimated to the petitioner.”

¶47

The grievance of petitioner in the contempt case is^{thatorderdated} 16.11.2023 is not implemented.

¶48

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner^{wouldsubmitthatin} fact,Mhe plot-was allotted to the petitioner, however,^rentisfixed. If the rent is fixed and such fixation is contrary, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same.

¶49

In J.S.Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Others\ the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

¶50

“....once there is an order passed by the Government^onthebasis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises^{afreshcauseofaction} to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the

^(1996) 6 see 291

Page 3 of 4

SRSJ C.C.No.2655 of 2024

¶55

judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. ...”

¶56

Since the plot was allotted to the petitioner, this Court does not find any violation of the order dated 16.11.2023.

¶57

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to

¶58

costs.

¶59

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶60

dismissed.

¶61

¶62

SDI- K. TAJA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

Sri A.Venkateswarlu S/o. Not Known, Working as Commissioner Guduru Municipality, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

¶67

One CC to Sri. Ramakrishna Akurathi Advocate [OPUC]

¶68

One CC to Sri. N Ranga Reddy (SC MC RSEEMA SPSR NLR) Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

Three CD Copies

SVR PRK

HIGH COURT

DATED;20/09/2024

ORDER

CC.No.2655 of 2024

O9 'vt3
a: 0 ^ JAN 2025 ml;
'Vo
Curren'i Seciion ^

¶76

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS

Tupakula Subhramanyam, v. Sri a.Venkateswarlu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tupakula Subhramanyam, v. Sri a.Venkateswarlu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Radha Krishna Vs the Regional Director of Medical Health and Services

Addagiri Ramanjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Peddalanka Durga Srinivas Vs the State of Ap

Nemala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Anil Kumar Singhal, IAS

Pothugunta Shakeela Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Irugu Vani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh