M.Siva Kumar Vs Sri Pradyumna P.S — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

M.Siva Kumar Vs Sri Pradyumna P.S — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

[3529]

APHC010326262023

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

MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4852/2023

Between:

M.SIVA KUMAR, S/O LATE M. CHINNAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, (RANDB) QUALITY CONTROL CIRCLE, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

SRI PRADYUMNA P S, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPT., A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

SRI K VENUGOPAL REDDY, , ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, (RANDB) ADMINISTRATION ROAD ANDBUILDING DEPT.,GOVT.,OF A. P., 5TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. .RESPONDENTS/RR NOS.1AND2 IN MAIN W.P. (THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 IN MAIN WP ARE NOT NECESSARY TO THIS C.C)

...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 issue summons and punish the respondents herein for their willful and deliberate disobedience against the judgment in W.P.No.8022/2017 dt.05-03-2020 and Under Section 10 to 12 of the

2

Contempt of Court Act 1971 R/w Article 215 of Constitution of India in the interests of justice and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 to dispense with the formality of filing of the copy of the judgement in WP.No. 8022/2017 the interest of justice pending disposal of the above CC

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.K LAKSHMANA RAJU

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

1.KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI

3

The Court made the following Judgment:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

The petitioner herein had approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), by way of O.A.No.1740 of 2016 disputing the seniority list, dated 11.02.2016 on the ground that the same had been prepared without considering the objections of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of W.P.No.8022 of 2017 contending that the objections of the petitioner, dated 13.01.2016 to the provisional integrated seniority list, dated 28.11.2015 had not been considered and a final seniority list, dated 11.02.2016 had been issued and the same was impermissible, as the objections of the petitioner had not been considered.

A Division Bench of this Court, by way of judgment, dated 05.03.2020 had disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioner, dated 13.01.2016 and to complete the said exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of any further objections.

The petitioner thereafter approached this Court, by way of the present Contempt Case contending that the respondents, had issued proceedings, dated 11.08.2020 rejecting the objections of the petitioner and the same is in violation of the directions of this Court and would amount to Contempt of Court.

4

The respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the orders were passed, after considering the objections of the petitioner and that there was no violation of the directions of this Court. The learned counsel for the respondents, would also raise an additional issue, of limitation, on the ground that the order of the respondent No.2 was issued on 11.08.2020 and served on the petitioner, but the petitioner had approached this Court only in the year 2023, which is beyond the period of one year provided under the Contempt of Courts Act.

A perusal of the order passed by the 2^nd respondent would show that the objections of the petitioner were considered and orders have been passed. There is compliance of the directions of this Court. However, it would be opened to the petitioner to assail the said order in accordance with law.

In the circumstances, this Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

________________________

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

________________

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 05.01.2026 KA

5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4852/2023

Date: 05.01.2026 KA