Disposed¶31

Annapureddy Sarojanamma v. Srinivasulu

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2025CC/1168/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 Sections 10 to 12; violation of status quo order dated 24.03.2022 in W.P.No.7419 of 2022; Srinivasulu, Municipal Commissioner, Giddalur Municipality, Prakasam District; petitioner Annapureddy Sarojanamma; Sy.No.466/2b1 Giddaluru Village; notice to Sri Kopparapu Satyanaryana; discrepancy in survey numbers; lenient view; anguish and condemnation of Municipal Commissioner; costs Rs.5,000/- payable to petitioner within one week; contempt lies between Court and contemnor only; Contempt Case closed, no order as to costs; Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao; decided 17.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case closed without punishing the respondent; costs of Rs.5,000/- imposed on the respondent, payable to the petitioner within one week; miscellaneous petitions, if any, to stand closed. ¶31

Annapureddy Sarojanamma Vs Srinivasulu — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt Case closed without punishing the respondent; costs of Rs.5,000/- imposed on the respondent, payable to the petitioner within one week; miscellaneous petitions, if any, to stand closed.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent, Municipal Commissioner of The Giddalur Municipality, violated the interim order dated 24.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.7419 of 2022 directing maintenance of status quo with regard to the subject property. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Noting a discrepancy in the survey numbers, the Court took a lenient view towards the respondent.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The respondent rendered no explanation for the violation of the Court's order; the Court expressed anguish and condemned the attitude adopted by the respondent-Municipal Commissioner.

¶28

Key takeaways

The Court imposed costs of Rs.5,000/- on the respondent, payable to the petitioner within one week, and called upon learned counsel for the petitioner to inform the Court whether the amount was received.ratio¶28
In a contempt proceeding there are only two parties, namely, the Court and the contemnor; the petitioner may assist but the matter lies between the Court and the alleged contemnor.obiter¶30
No substantial, much less positive, directions were given in favour of the petitioner to justify the initiation of contempt proceedings in the present case.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao: Contempt Case No.1168 of 2025 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, filed by Annapureddy Sarojanamma against Srinivasulu, Municipal Commissioner, The Giddalur Municipality, alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 24.03.2022 in W.P.No.7419 of 2022, whereby the respondents were directed to maintain status quo over the subject property. The respondent's reply stated that notice had been issued to Sri Kopparapu Satyanaryana and action taken against him, placing the petitioner's property in Sy.No.466/2b1 of Giddaluru Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. Observing a discrepancy in the survey numbers, the Court took a lenient view, but condemned the respondent's failure to explain the violation, expressed anguish at the attitude of a person holding a responsible post, and imposed costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the petitioner within one week. Observing that contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor alone, and that no substantial, much less positive, directions had been given in the petitioner's favour to justify initiating contempt, the Court closed the Contempt Case with miscellaneous petitions, if any.

¶1

[3330]

¶2

APHC010153922025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1168/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

ANNAPUREDDY SAROJANAMMA, W/O ESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, THIRNMAPURAM POST, GIDDALUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

SRINIVASULU, S/o not known to the Petitioner, Occ Municipal Commissioner, The Giddalur Municipality, Represented by its Commissioner, Office at Giddalur, Prakasam District

¶14

...CONTEMNOR

¶15

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 pleased to punish the respondent for his willful and deliberate violation of the orders made by this Hon'ble Court dated 24.03.2022 made in W.P.No.7419 of 2022 by his Lordships Hon'ble Sri Justice TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.A K KISHORE REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Contemnor:

¶19

1.GUDAPATI LAKSHMI NARAYANA

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶23

CONTEMPT CASE No.1168 of 2025

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The present contempt case is filed complaining the violation of the order dated 24.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.7419 of 2022.

¶26

This Court vide order dated 24.03.2022, directed the respondents to maintain status-quo obtained as on the date of passing the order with regard to the subject property.

¶27

The sole respondent-Municipal Commissioner has filed a reply and stated that notice was issued to one Sri Kopparapu Satyanaryana and thereafter, an action was taken against him and thus, the respondent has not violated the order of this Court. It is further stated that the property of the petitioner is situated in Sy.No.466/2b1 of Giddaluru Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶28

As there is a discrepancy in the survey numbers, this Court has taken a lenient view. However, the respondent has not rendered any explanation for the violation of the order and this Court expresses the anguish and condemns the attitude adopted by the respondent-Municipal Commissioner. More so, holding such a responsible post, he must have some sense of responsibility and should have been aware of what the minimum requirements are, while filing reply/counter to the contempt case, and even if he did not know, he should have consulted any law officer before filing the affidavit. Hence, this Court is inclined to impose costs of Rs.5,000/-, payable to the petitioner within one week from today. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall inform this Court as to whether the petitioner has received the said amount.

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

Contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor. After furnishing such information, the petitioner may still assist the Court. However, it must always be borne in mind that in a contempt proceeding there are only two parties, namely, the Court and the contemnor. The petitioner should not be unaware that no substantial, much less positive, directions were given in favour of the petitioner herein, to justify the initiation of contempt proceedings in the present case.

¶31