Disposed

SreeMandali Enterprises Partner, v. Sri. G Sai Prasad, I.A.S.

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026CC/2085/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed a contempt petition after the respondents (government officials) cleared the outstanding amounts owed to the petitioner contractor, as directed by an earlier writ petition order. The Finance Department submitted a letter confirming payment of four bills totalling over Rs. 52 lakh, leading the court to close the contempt case with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; no order as to costs.

SreeMandali Enterprises Partner, Vs Sri. G Sai… — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3333]

¶2

APHC010214392026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2085/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

SREEMANDALI ENTERPRISES PARTNER,, MP SANAKA KOTA VENKATA RENUKA RAVI VARA PRASAD, S/O NAGA BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O D.NO.12, NAGAYALANKAVILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

SRI G SAI PRASAD I A S, PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IRRIGATION AND CAD WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

SRI PEEYUSH KUMAR, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

SRI D K BALAJI I A S, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR (IRRIGATION WING), MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶16

SRI JERRIPHOTULAGUNAKAR RAO, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT

¶17

SRI R RAVI KIRAN, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, KRISHNA CENTRAL DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶18

¶19

...CONTEMNOR(S):

¶20

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 may be pleased to punish the respondents U/s. 10 to 12 of contempt's of Court Acts for willful and deliberate violation of Final order passed in WP No 28359/2025 dated 17.11.2025 by Learned Single Judge and to pass such

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA

¶23

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶24

1.RAMA RAO KOCHIRI

¶25

2.SOMA RAJU YELISETTI

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.28359 of 2025, dated 17.11.2025. The operative portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

¶30

“…..this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the amounts to the petitioner in accordance with Quality Control Certificate dated 23.09.2025 for a sum of Rs. 20,91,758/-, Quality Control Certificate dated 18.09.2025 for a sum of Rs. 20,52,558/-, and Quality Control Certificate dated 18.09.2025 for a sum of Rs.16,06,148/- issued by the respondents, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order….”

¶31

Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing

¶32

for the respondents/contemnors furnished a copy of Letter No.FIN01FMU0MISC/350/2022(1778130), dated 11.09.2026, issued by the 2^nd respondent, wherein it is stated that the Finance Department has received the following bills in respect of the present contempt case and the same have been cleared. The details are as follows:

¶33

Bill No.	Net amount (Rs.)	Payment Status
2026-71390593	11,41,912/-	Cleared on 11.09.2026
2026-71406502	14,27,503/-	Cleared on 11.09.2026
2026-71395748	15,08,831/-	Cleared on 11.09.2026
2026-71407308	12,03,965/-	Cleared on 11.09.2026

¶34

¶35

Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents/contemnors requested this Court to close the contempt case.

¶36

Recording the above submissions and, in view of the fact that the amounts have been cleared by the respondents in favour of the petitioner, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.

¶38

___________________

¶39

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶40

Date: 11.09.2026 KGR

SreeMandali Enterprises Partner, v. Sri. G Sai Prasad, I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

SreeMandali Enterprises Partner, v. Sri. G Sai Prasad, I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases