Dismissed

P. Srinu, v. Sri M. Nagabhushana Sarma

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Apr 2026CC/2633/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a contempt petition against the respondents. The Court noted that the petitioner was not present, while the respondents advanced instructions stating compliance with the main writ petition's requirements. The case was closed without punishment, granting liberty to pursue remedies in the main writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Conempt case closed; liberty granted to petitioner to work out legal remedies in the main Writ Petition; no order as to costs.

P. Srinu, Vs Sri M. Nagabhushana Sarma — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010004642016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3504]

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶7

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2633/2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

P. SRINU,, S/O MUNAIAH, AGED 25 YEARS, OCC: ATTENDER (AGAINST UDC), A.P. RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (BOYS), GANAPAVARAM VILLAGE, THRIPURANTHAKAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

SRI M NAGABHUSHANA SARMA, SECRETARY, A.P. RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTES SOCIETY, 3RD FLOOR, GAGANVIHAR, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD.

¶13

SRI K PUMA CHANDRA RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN, THE PRINCIPAL (FAC), A.P. RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (BOYS), GANAPAVARAM VILLAGE, THRIPURANTHAKAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.

¶14

SRI B P SARMA, S/O NOT KNOWN, THE PRINCIPAL (FAC), A.P. RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL (BOYS), SANTHANUTHALAPADU VILLAGE & MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.

¶15

...CONTEMNOR(S):

¶16

¶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 be pleased to pleased to punish the respondents herein in accordance with law under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for their willful and deliberate violation and disobedience of the order dated 13-04-2016 in WP No. 12190 of 2016 of Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai in the interest of justice and pass

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.PARTY IN PERSON

¶20

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶21

VINOD KUMAR TARLADA

¶22

2.G SIMHADRI (SC FOR APREIS TW SW BC)

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶25

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2633 of 2016

¶26

The Court made the following Order:

¶27

On 08.04.2026, this Court passed the following order:

¶28

“Consequent to the Order dated 26.02.2026, Registry sent notice to the petitioner and the same was returned with an endorsement “No such person in the address”.

¶29

Registry is directed to print the name of the petitioner in the cause list.

¶30

Post on 09.04.2026 under the caption

¶31

“for dismissal”.”

¶32

Thereafter, the matter was listed on 09.04.2026, on which

¶33

date, this Court adjourned the matter directing the Registry to print the name of petitioner in place of learned counsel for the petitioner in the cause list.

¶34

Resultantly, the matter is listed today, by depicting the name of petitioner in the cause list.

¶35

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, none represented the petitioner.

¶36

On the other hand, Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri T.Vinod Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents produced copy of Written Instructions of the

¶37

¶38

concerned Joint Secretary, APREI Society, Government of AP, wherein it is stated that the interim Order dated 13.04.2026 in WP No.12190 of 2016 was complied with, as long as the daily wage system was in force and as the said system was no longer in force, the services of the petitioner could not be engaged.

¶39

Recording the submission made by learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and in view of the fact that the main Writ Petition is still pending, this Contempt Case is closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his legal remedies in the main Writ Petition. No order as to costs.

¶40

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶41

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶42

Date: 16.04.2026 PSA

P. Srinu, v. Sri M. Nagabhushana Sarma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Srinu, v. Sri M. Nagabhushana Sarma

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

P. Shiva Kumar Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Industries and Commerce

Summer Rocks Vs the State of Ap

Sri.T.R. Muthukumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Balisetty Ajay Madhav Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Raheem Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Nikitha Enterprises, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh