A. Balamma Vs Sri Mr. M.N. Harendhira Prasad IAS — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

A. Balamma Vs Sri Mr. M.N. Harendhira Prasad IAS — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioners to challenge the speaking order passed by the 9th respondent by which their representations were rejected; miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/contemnor wilfully disobeyed the orders dated 17.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.16383 of 2025, constituting contempt warranting action under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. +1 more

Court's answer

The Contempt Case stands dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to challenge the speaking order passed by the 9th respondent by which their representations were rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that the petitioners' contention that the respondents' decision disregarded the General Transfer Orders and related governmental orders touches upon the merits of the matter, into which a contempt proceeding cannot enter.

Key takeaways

Since a detailed speaking order had been passed pursuant to the writ Court's directions and the petitioners' grievance lay with the merits of that order, the Court found the contempt case misplaced and liable to be dismissed.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Case No. 2318 of 2025 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati; Justice Challa Gunaranjan; 08.01.2026), filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilful disobedience of the writ Court's orders dated 17.07.2025 in W.P.No.16383 of 2025, which had directed the 9th respondent to consider the petitioners' representations on implementation of General Transfers, 2025 proceedings (R.c.No.285/1066/E1/2025, dt.02.06.2025). Pursuant to those directions, the 9th respondent passed a detailed speaking order dated 18.08.2025 rejecting the representations, and the petitioners had assumed charge at their transferred stations. Holding that the petitioners' remaining grievance - that the speaking order ignored the General Transfer Orders and associated governmental orders - concerned the merits of an administrative decision into which a contempt proceeding cannot enter, the Court dismissed the Contempt Case as misplaced, granting the petitioners liberty to challenge the speaking order on its merits.

APHC010444102025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:30 AT AMARAVATI

[3506]

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2318 of 2025

A. Balamma and Others

...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

sri mr m n harendhira prasad ias ...Contemnor

Advocate for Petitioner: Tulasi giri G Advocate for Contemnor: G RAJU

CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

DATE : 8th January 2026

The Court made the following Order:

This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the willful disobedience of the orders dated 17.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.16383 of 2025.

The writ petition was initially filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the representations of the petitioners to implement the proceedings vide R.c.No.285/1066/E1/2025, dated 02.06.2025, which dealt with General Transfers, 2025, in its true letter and spirit, to be illegal

2

and arbitrary. The writ Court, by order dated 11.07.2025, disposed the writ petition, directing the 9^th respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In pursuance to the said directions issued, the 9^th respondent has passed orders dated 18.08.2025, rejecting the representations so made by the petitioners. An elaborate order has been passed dealing with all the pleas raised by the petitioners in their representations; however, negatived the same. Despite the same, the present contempt case has been preferred alleging violation of orders passed by this Court.

Heard Sri G. Tulasi Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ch. Samson, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.

learned counsel for the respondents states that inasmuch as a detailed speaking order has been passed considering the representations made by the petitioners, the same cannot be construed as deliberate Act of violating the directions issued by the writ Court. Further, it is also stated that in pursuance to the said orders passed, the petitioners have already assumed charge at the respective new stations where they were transferred to.

3

Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, tried to pursue this Court by contending that the respondents, while considering the representations, have not considered the General Transfer Orders and the Governmental Orders governing the same in its true spirit, rather, the decisions so made was clearly contrary to the same.

As the said contention touches upon the merits of the matter, this Court cannot enter into the said arena and decide the merits or otherwise of decision so made. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the contempt case is misplaced and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly the Contempt Case stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to challenge the speaking order passed by the 9^th respondent, by which their representations came to the rejected.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

Date: 08.01.2026 ANS

4

292

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2318/2025

Date: 08.01.2026 ANS