Disposed¶37

Raise Operations v. Y Sri Lakshmi

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jan 2026CC/2390/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Contempt Case No. 2390 of 2025; Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda; Section 20 Contempt of Courts Act 1971 one-year limitation; wilful disobedience of order dated 09.09.2022 in W.P.No.3434 of 2019 for payment of admitted amounts; respondents: Principal Secretary Revenue Dept., District Collector Eluru, Extension Officer (PR and RD) Eluru, Municipal Commissioner Eluru; contempt held time-barred and not maintainable; closed with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed as not maintainable, with liberty granted to the petitioner to proceed further by initiating appropriate proceedings; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶37

Raise Operations Vs Y Sri Lakshmi — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3329]

¶2

APHC010453292025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2390/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

RAISE OPERATIONS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SEELAPUREDDY LAKSHMI NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O. NAGIREDDY, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC. CIVIL CONTRACTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DOOR NO. 15-102, VELAGALAPALLI POST AND VILLAGE, CHINTALAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Y SRI LAKSHMI, W/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT.,, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶13

V PRASANNA VENKATESH, , S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, OCC DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT).

¶14

M SANDEEP, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OCC EXTENSION OFFICER (PR AND RD), ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT).

¶15

Y SAI SREEKANTH, S/O NOT KNOWN, OCC MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT (ERST WHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT)

¶16

...CONTEMNOR(S):

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

be pleased to may be pleased to punish the Respondents under the provisions of contempt of courts Act for willful, deliberate disobedience of the Honble Court order passed in W.P No. 3434 of 2019 dated 09-09-2022 and pass such

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.P NARAHARI BABU

¶22

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶23

1.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)

¶24

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2390/2025

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 09.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3434 of 2019.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though this Court passed an order dated 09.09.2022 directing the respondent to pay the admitted amounts, but the respondents neither choose to pay the amounts nor responded to the requests made by the petitioner. Hence, the Contempt Case.

¶32

The contempt case is filed on 21.08.2025. When this Court made a query how the contempt case is maintainable in respect of the orders passed by this Court on 09.09.2022 as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, then learned counsel for the petitioner furnished copy of CC(SR) No.27028 of 2025 and stated that the same was filed on 30.03.2023.

¶33

Considering the submissions, this Court called for record from the Registry by way of report. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, Registry submitted a report on 15.09.2025, wherein it is stated that no contempt is filed as on 30.03.2023 as alleged by the petitioner, but the contempt is filed and SR number was given on 06.08.2024 vide C.C.(SR) No.27028 of 2025.

¶34

¶35

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the report of the Registry, the contempt case is not maintainable. As per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it contemplates any contempt should be filed within a period of one year after the alleged contempt has been started by the respondents. Admittedly in the present case, contempt is filed after completion of the one year period as prescribed under Section 20 of the Act. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to grant liberty to proceed further by initiating appropriate proceedings by the petitioner.

¶36

In view of the foregoing discussion, the contempt case is closed by granting liberty to the petitioner to proceed further by initiating appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs.

¶37

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed.

¶38

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

22.01.2026 TPS

206

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶43