Disposed¶38

M.Appa Rao v. Sri.Hareesh Kumar Madam,Ias

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Aug 2025CC/2548/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 Sections 10 to 12; contempt case closed with liberty; willful disobedience of AP Administrative Tribunal Common Order dt.30.08.2011 in O.A.No.10596/2009 & batch; seniority fixation of retired RSI, 5th Battalion APSP; ADGP Order dated 23.04.2012 open to challenge; respondents' Memo dated 20.09.2024; related W.P.Nos.21683 of 2012 & batch disposed 15.02.2023; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Case is closed with liberty granted to the petitioner to assail/challenge the Order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Additional Director General of Police; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Contempt Case stand closed. ¶38

M.Appa Rao Vs Sri.Hareesh Kumar Madam,Ias — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed willful disobedience of the Common Order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.Nos.10596 of 2009 & batch, warranting cognizance and punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. +1 more

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Considering the submissions made by both learned counsel and the facts and circumstances, the Contempt Case is liable to be closed by granting liberty to the petitioner to assail the Order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Additional Director General of Police.

¶37

Key takeaways

The Contempt Case is accordingly closed with liberty; there is no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Contempt Case stand closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Case No. 2548 of 2024, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), decided 07.08.2025 by Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J. — The petitioner, a retired RSI, filed the Contempt Case alleging willful disobedience by the respondent officials of the Common Order dated 30.08.2011 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.Nos.10596 of 2009 & batch. After disposal of W.P.Nos.21683 of 2012 & batch on 15.02.2023, the respondents filed a Memo dated 20.09.2024 annexing the Additional Director General of Police's Order dated 23.04.2012 fixing seniority including the petitioner. On the submissions that the Writ Petition order cannot be implemented unless the Order dated 23.04.2012 is set aside, the Court held the Contempt Case liable to be closed, and accordingly closed it with liberty to the petitioner to assail the Order dated 23.04.2012, with no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous applications.

¶1

APHC010225152024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3329]

¶5

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2548/2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

M.APPA RAO, S/O M. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC RETIRED RSI, 5TH BATTALION, APSP VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAMDISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

SRI HAREESH KUMAR MADAM IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶14

SRI ATHUL SING, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, APSP BATTALIONS,MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503

¶15

SMT P RAJA KUMARI, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, APSP BATTALIONS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503

¶16

SMT RATNA KUMARI, COMMANDANT, 9TH BATTALION, APSP VENKATAGIRI, NELLORE DISTRICT

¶17

SRI B PRAKASH, COMMANDANT, 6TH BATTALION, APSP MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶18

...CONTEMNOR(S):

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

be pleased to pleased to take cognizance of the offence committed by the Respondents in non-compliance of the direction issued by the Honble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad and non implementation of the Common Order, dt.30.08.2011in O.A.No.10596/2009, under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act and punish the Respondents with appropriate sentence and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.SODUM ANVESHA

¶24

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶25

1.G RAJU

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶29

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2548/2024

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Contempt Case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the Common Order dated 30.08.2011, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.Nos.10596 of 2009 & batch

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing the present Contempt Case and after disposal of the W.P.Nos.21683 of 2012 & batch, dated 15.02.2023, the respondents filed a Memo dated 20.09.2024, wherein, they annexed the Order passed by the Additional Director General of Police, dated 23.04.2012, fixing the seniority including the petitioner herein.

¶33

The learned counsel further submits that in view of the Order passed by the Additional Director General of Police, dated 23.04.2012, the petitioner has to challenge the Order for redressal of his grievance, if any, for which, he is requesting for liberty to challenge the same.

¶34

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the Order already passed by the authority concerned dated 23.04.2012, the Order of this Court in the Writ Petition cannot be implementable unless the Order dated 23.04.2012 is set aside. Hence, the Order of the Writ Petition is duly complied with by passing such order. Therefore, the present contempt also cannot be enforced.

¶35

¶36

Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and in

¶37

view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, the Contempt Case is liable to be closed by granting liberty to the petitioner to assail the Order dated 23.04.2012.

¶38

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed with liberty. No order as to costs.

¶39

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Contempt

¶40

Case shall stand closed.

¶41

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶42

07.08.2025 SCH

¶43

¶44