Dismissed¶37

Y.S Traders v. Mudavatu M Nayak, IAS

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Feb 2026CC/3994/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC010671862025; Contempt Case No. 3994 of 2025; Y.S. Traders (Devarapalli Anand Kumar) v. Mudavatu M Nayak IAS and others; Sections 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act 1971; alleged violation of interim order dated 03.10.2025 in W.P. No. 27146 of 2025; status quo direction; power supply disconnection; partial demolition of building; possession taken over before writ petition; contempt dismissed by Justice T.C.D. Sekhar on 27.02.2026; pending applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Except a bald allegation in the supporting affidavit, nothing was placed on record to show that the respondents violated the order of this Court. ¶31

Y.S Traders Vs Mudavatu M Nayak, IAS — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010671862025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3994 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Y.S.TRADERS, MGLM Unit Auto Nagar, Rep. by its proprietor, Devarapalli Anand Kumar, S/o D. Koteswara rao. Aged 48 years, Occ Proprietor, R/o D.No.26-17-49, 1^st floor, Near auto Nagar Gate, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, Pin-520003.

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

MUDAVATU M NAYAK IAS, IAS, Present working as Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶14

Sri V.Prasanna Venkatesh IAS, Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Leather Industries Development Corporation of A.P LTD Office at Mahendra Enclave, NRI Block-C, 3RD Floor, Flat No.8, Tadepalli, Guntur-522501.

¶15

Dr G Lakshmisha I A S, The District Collector, NTR District, Bandar Road, Vijayawada-520002, A.P.

¶16

R.Veera Venkata Rohini, The Tahsildar, Vijayawada East, Patamata, NTR District.

¶17

Sri S.V.Raja Sekhara Babu IPS, The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City.

¶18

Sri V.Pavan Kishore, The Station House Officer, Patamata Police Station.

¶19

...Respondents

¶20

¶21

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 respondent authorities by invoking the provisions of Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 by taking appropriate steps in accordance with the law, for willful, wanton and deliberate violation of the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by this Honble Court in W.P. No. 27146 of 2025 in the interest of justice and pass such other orders.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: B VAMSI KRISHNA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: T VISHNU TEJA

¶24

The Court made the following order:

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CONTEMPT CASE No.3994 OF 2025

¶27

ORDER: -

¶28

The present Contempt Case is filed alleging that the respondent Nos.1 to 6 have violated the interim order dt.03.10.2025 passed by this Court.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that, after the interim order the 2^nd respondent disconnected the power supply to the building in dispute and caused inconvenience to the functioning of the machinery installed therein.

¶30

A perusal of the record, it is evident that the building in dispute was partly demolished as on the date of filing of the writ petition.

¶31

After hearing, this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo in the matter. Except making a bald allegation against the respondents in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, nothing is placed on record to show that the respondents have violated the order passed by this Court.

¶32

As already noted supra, the building in dispute was partly demolished and therefore the question of causing inconvenience to the machinery installed therein does not arise. Further, while passing the interim order, this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo , that does not mean that the petitioner is allowed to run the machinery. Apart from the same, it is the specific case of the respondents that the

¶33

¶34

possession of the demised building was taken over even before the filing of the writ petition and undertaken the demolition of the same.

¶35

In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the respondents have violated the interim order passed by this Court on 03.10.2025.

¶36

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has miserably failed to establish that the respondents have flouted the orders of this Court.

¶37