Daggumalli Bharathi Vs Sri. Manam Nageswara Rao

DAGGUMALLI BHARATHI, AGE 58 YEARS, OCC SWEEPER, BAPATLA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BAPATLA GUNTUR DISTRICT, R/O. 17-1-29/1, 30TH WARD, D.M. PALLE, BAPATLA GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

SRI MANAM NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC SECRETARY OF BAPATLA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, MAHATMAGIPURAM, BAPATLA - 522 102 GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

SRI KUMARAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC PRINCIPAL OF BAPATLA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, MAHATMAGIPURAM, BAPATLA - 522 102 GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

...CONTEMNOR(S):

¶16

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 respondents under sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of

¶17

2

¶18

Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of the orders passed by Sri Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy in WPMP No.38193 of 2017 in WP No.30651 of 2017, dt.12.09.2017 and to pass

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.KRISHNA KISHORE KOVVURI

¶21

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶22

1.GHANTA SRIDHAR

¶23

3

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶25

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1428 of 2018

¶26

The Court made the following Order:

¶27

Instant Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of interim order dated 12.09.2017 in WP MP No.38193 of 2017 in WP No.30651 of 2017.

¶28

2. None represented the petitioner.

¶29

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri G.Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the main WP No.30651 of 2017 itself was dismissed on 27.06.2025. He also brought to the notice of this Court relevant paras of the Order dated 27.06.2025 made in WP No.30651 of 2017 which read as under:

¶30

“4. Learned counsels for the respondents submit that the writ petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2019, after attaining the age of 60 years. Thereafter, she also received all statutory entitlements on 04.09.2019 itself.

¶31

5. Thus, by taking into consideration the above submissions made by the respective counsels, coupled with the specific averments stated in para No.9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.4 & 5, this Court is of the opinion that this matter does not require any further adjudication and the Writ Petition is accordingly closed.”

¶32

4

¶33