Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

M. Nageswara Reddy Vs Peeyush Kumar, IAS — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Home
Andhra Pradesh HC
2026
M. Nageswara Reddy Vs Peeyush Kumar, IASM. Nageswara Reddy v. Peeyush Kumar, IAS

Disposed¶37

M. Nageswara Reddy v. Peeyush Kumar, IAS

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Mar 2026CC/3866/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sections 10 to 12; contempt case closed on recorded compliance; willful disobedience alleged of orders dated 10.03.2025 in W.P.No.2879 of 2025; contemnors Peeyush Kumar (Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Velagapudi/Amaravathi), Cherukuri Sridhar (District Collector, Kadapa), Adarsh Rajendran (Special Collector (L.A), GNSS3, Kadapa), Santhamma (Special Deputy Collector (L.A), G.N.S.S. Unitill, Muddanuru), Y.S.R District; petitioners M. Nageswara Reddy, M Nagarjuna Reddy, M. Saraswathi, M.Chandrasekhar Reddy, M. Ramamohan Reddy (Obulapuram village, Muddanuru Mandal); IA No. 1 of 2026 under Section 151 CPC seeking virtual appearance on 26.02.2026; counsel V R Reddy Kovvuri (petitioners), Nagaraju Pullagura and Sushma Yaganti (contemnors); Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda; decision date 06.03.2026; no punishment imposed, no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Recorded learned counsel's submission that the respondents have complied with the orders dated 10.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.2879 of 2025, and that no further orders are therefore required to be passed in the contempt case. ¶36

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed willful disobedience of the orders dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2879 of 2025, warranting punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Court's answer

Recorded learned counsel's submission that the respondents have complied with the orders dated 10.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.2879 of 2025, and that no further orders are therefore required to be passed in the contempt case.

Ratio / Principle

Recording the said submission, the Contempt Case is closed, with no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge order (Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J., High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, 06.03.2026) in Contempt Case No. 3866/2025, filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by M. Nageswara Reddy and four others, alleging willful, deliberate and intentional violation by four contemnors — the Principal Secretary, Finance Department (Peeyush Kumar, IAS), the District Collector, Kadapa (Cherukuri Sridhar), the Special Collector (L.A), GNSS3, Kadapa (Adarsh Rajendran), and the Special Deputy Collector (L.A), G.N.S.S. Unitill, Muddanuru (Santhamma) — of this Court's orders dated 10.03.2025 made in W.P.No.2879 of 2025. An accompanying IA No. 1 of 2026 under Section 151 CPC sought dispensation from physical appearance on 26.02.2026 and permission to appear through virtual mode. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have complied with the orders dated 10.03.2025 and that no further orders were required; the court recorded the submission, closed the Contempt Case with no order as to costs, and directed that miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case stand closed.

A

[3329]

APHC010652822025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3866/2025

Between:

M. NAGESWARA REDDY, S/O. LATE M. CHENNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. OBULAPURAM VILLAGE, MUDDANURU MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT.

M NAGARJUNA REDDY,, S/O. NAGESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICUITURE, R/O. OBULAPURAM VILLAGE, MUDDANURU MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT.

M. SARASWATHI,, WO. VENKAT NAGESWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. PATAPALLE VILLAGE, YELLANURU TVLANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

M.CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY,, S/O. RAMA CHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. OBULAPURAM VILLAGE, MUDDANURU MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT.

M. RAMAMOHAN REDDY, , S/O. L.M. CHENNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. OBULAPURAM VILLAGE, MUDDANURU MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

PEEYUSH KUMAR IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

SRI CHERUKURI SRIDHAR, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA,

2

Y.S.R DISTRICT.

SRI ADARSH RAJENDRAN, SPECIAL COLLECTOR (L.A), GNSS3. KADAPA, Y.S.R DISTRICT.

SANTHAMMA, SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A), G.N.S.S. UNITILL MUDDANURU, Y.S.R DISTRICT.

...CONTEMNOR(S):

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 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for their willful, deliberate and intentional violation of the orders of this Honble Court, dated 10.03.2025 made in W.P.No.2879 of 2025 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to dispense with appearance on 26.02.2026 in CC No.3866 of 2025 in WP No.2879 of 2025 and permit me to appear through virtual mode and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.V R REDDY KOVVURI

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

1.NAGARAJU PULLAGURA

2.SUSHMA YAGANTI

The Court made the following:

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3866/2025

ORDER:

This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2879 of 2025.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have complied with the orders dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2879 of 2025, and hence, no further orders are required to be passed in the contempt case.

Recording the said submission, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs.

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

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

06.03.2026 TPS

4

29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

(closed)

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3866/2025

06.03.2026 TPS

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondents committed willful disobedience of the orders dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2879 of 2025, warranting punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.¶35
The court held
Recorded learned counsel's submission that the respondents have complied with the orders dated 10.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.2879 of 2025, and that no further orders are therefore required to be passed in the contempt case.ratio¶36

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Sections 10 to 12¶23 Sections 10 to 12¶23
Civil Procedure Code (CPC)151¶25

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Orders dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2879 of 2025, whose willful disobedience by the respondents prompted this contempt case.¶35
Prior proceeding
At hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have complied with the orders dated 10.03.2025 and no further orders were required.¶36
Prior proceeding
IA No. 1 of 2026 under Section 151 CPC sought dispensation from physical appearance on 26.02.2026 in the contempt case and permission to appear through virtual mode.¶25

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
M. NAGESWARA REDDY¶9
V R REDDY KOVVURI
petitioner
M NAGARJUNA REDDY¶10
V R REDDY KOVVURI
petitioner
M. SARASWATHI¶11
V R REDDY KOVVURI
petitioner
M.CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY¶12
V R REDDY KOVVURI
petitioner
M. RAMAMOHAN REDDY¶13
V R REDDY KOVVURI
respondent
PEEYUSH KUMAR IAS¶16
NAGARAJU PULLAGURA, SUSHMA YAGANTI
respondent
CHERUKURI SRIDHAR¶17
NAGARAJU PULLAGURA, SUSHMA YAGANTI
respondent
ADARSH RAJENDRAN¶20
NAGARAJU PULLAGURA, SUSHMA YAGANTI
respondent
SANTHAMMA¶21
NAGARAJU PULLAGURA, SUSHMA YAGANTI

Coram

AI extract

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDAauthor¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Andhra Pradesh HC
Decided on: 5 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 8 Dec 2025
Case no.: CC/3866/2025
CNR: APHC010652822025
Topic: Contempt of Court
Bench: Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
Disposal: CLOSED NO COSTS
Case type: Contempt Case

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

Makineni Venkata Sujatha Vs Eedhara Rathamma
4 Mar 2026
Dalli Bharathi Devi Vs the Government of Andhra Pradesh
4 Mar 2026
B. Mohanamma @ B. Mohana, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh
4 Mar 2026
Masta Nageswarara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh
5 Mar 2026
V Siva Sunil Kumar Reddy Vs Sai Prasad IAS
5 Mar 2026
V Sreenivasa Rao Vs the Labour Court
5 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

M. Nageswara Reddy v. Peeyush Kumar, IAS, CC/3866/2025 (AP), decided on 5 March 2026.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Sections 10 to 12 · Sections 10 to 12
Civil Procedure Code (CPC)151

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Orders dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2879 of 2025, whose willful disobedience by the respondents prompted this contempt case.
At hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have complied with the orders dated 10.03.2025 and no further orders were required.

View full history

Bench / Coram

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

Parties & counsel