Namaadi Sujatha Vs Dr Mahesh Kumar Ravirala IAS… — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Namaadi Sujatha Vs Dr Mahesh Kumar Ravirala IAS… — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/contemnors wilfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the interim order dated 27.09.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.21576 of 2024 (directing continuation of the petitioner's services), so as to attract punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Court's answer

The Court rejected the petitioner's main contention that, at the behest of the local MLA, the petitioner was disengaged in violation of the interim order; it is not persuaded by that contention.

Ratio / Principle

Punishment of the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act is warranted only where the act done by the contemnors is deliberate and intentional.

Key takeaways

The petitioner admittedly continued till end-January 2025; if the agency disengaged her services due to her irregular attendance, the respondents cannot be held liable, there being no contractual obligation between the petitioner and the respondents.ratio¶¶53
Though more allegations were levelled against the local MLA, the writ petition contained no direction against the said MLA.ratio¶¶53
On the facts, the Court finds no deliberate violation of the interim order warranting punishment of the respondents.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Case No. 538 of 2025 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Subba Reddy Satti, J.) alleging wilful violation of the interim order dated 27.09.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.21576 of 2024, by which the 4th respondent, District Coordinator of Hospital Services, was directed to continue the petitioner — a sanitation worker engaged through the TVT Group — as per the terms of her appointment/contract at CHC, T.Kothapalli. Petitioner pleaded continuance only till 02.02.2025 and an oral bar from 03.02.2025; respondents showed that her engagement was purely through the agency under an agreement dated 01.06.2021 (expired 31.05.2024, extended until the new agency's agreement on 01.10.2025), that she served till end-January 2025, and that the agency itself replaced her (R.Meenakshi) from February 2025 owing to irregular attendance (absence of 10 days in November 2024 and 3 days in December 2024). Held: punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act requires a deliberate and intentional act by the contemnors; agency-driven disengagement for irregular attendance is not attributable to the respondents; there is no contractual obligation between the petitioner and the respondents; and the writ petition carried no direction against the local MLA, so the MLA-behest plea found no favour. Contempt Case dismissed, no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed; the writ petition itself remains pending.

[3331]

APHC010091052025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 538/2025

Between:

NAMAADI SUJATHA, W/O. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC WORKING AS SANITATION WORKER IN CHCT.KOTHAPALLI, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, R/O D. NO. 1- 99, ADVIPETA, T. KOTHAPALLI, I. POLAVARAM MANDAL, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT(WRIT PETITIONER-3)

...PETITIONER

AND

DR MAHESH KUMAR RAVIRALA IAS DISMISSED, .A.S., THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, AMALAPRUAM (W.P.NO.R3). R1 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 01 05 2025 VIDE I A NO 2 OF 2025 IN CC NO 538 OF 2025

SMT DR JYOTHIRMAYEE, SUPERINTENDENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE(CHC) OF T.KOTHAPALLI, POLAVARAM, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. R 2 IS IMPLEADED AS SUO MOTO AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 14.11.2025, IN CC NO-538 OF 2025.

DR N DIYANA DISMISSED, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE (CHC) OF T. KOTHAPALLI, I. POLAVARAM, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT(W.P.NO.R5). R3 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED AS

Page 2 of 6

PER COURT ORDER DATED 01 05 2025 VIDE I A NO 2 OF 2025 IN CC NO 538 OF 2025

SRI DATLA SUBBA RAJU DISMISSED, HON'BLE MLA, MUMMIDIVARAM ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY, MUMMIDIVARAM, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT(W.P.NO.R6). R4 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 01 05 2025 VIDE I A NO 2 OF 2025 IN CC NO 538 OF 2025

THE TVT GROUP DISMISSED, REP BY T. VENKATESHWARLU, S/O AND AGE. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O D. NO. 18-104, SHANTI NAGAR, MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE. (W.P.N0.R8). R5 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 01 05 2025 VIDE I A NO 2 OF 2025 IN CC NO 538 OF 2025

...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 summon the respondents/Contemnors and punish him Sec.10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, for willfully deliberately and intentionally violating the Interim orders in I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P. No. 21576/2024 dated 27-09-2024 of this Honble Court and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 direct the respondents to implement the Interim orders in LA. No. 1/2024 in W.P. No. 21576/2024 dated 27-09-2024 by directing the all the respondents to take decision in accordance with Final Orders pending the above Contempt Petition and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

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 dismiss/close the above C.C. against the 1st, 3rd to 5th respondents and pass

Page 3 of 6

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

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 recall the Bailable warrant issued on 14-08-2025 against me i.e. 2nd respondent in CC.No. 538 of 2025 and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.G SIMHADRI

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

1.G RAJU

The Court made the following:

ORDER

The above contempt case is filed complaining violation of the order dated 27.09.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.21576 of 2024.

The petitioner along with 2 others filed the above writ petition to declare the action of the respondents 4 and 6 viz. the District Coordinator of Hospital Services and Datla Subba Raju, MLA, Mummidivaram Constituency in directing the petitioner orally not to attend the duties from 01.10.2024 onwards in the 5^th respondent-Community Health Centre (CHC), T.Kothapalli, I.Polavaram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, as illegal and arbitrary.

An interim order was passed directing the 4^th respondent, District Coordinator of Hospital Services, to continue the services of the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of their appointment/contract. While granting an interim order, it was observed that the 7^th respondent, Security Services Agency, provided the services of the petitioner as the sanitation worker in CHC, T.Kothapalli village and the 6^th respondent-MLA addressed

Page 4 of 6

a letter dated 09.09.2024 to the 4^th respondent to remove the petitioner and others and thereafter, the 4^th respondent orally directed the petitioner and others not to attend the duties. In those facts and circumstances, this Court granted an interim order.

In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was pleaded that after the interim order, the petitioner was continued till 02.02.2025, and thereafter, the Superintendent of CHC, T.Kothapalli orally directed the petitioner not to attend the duties from 03.02.2025.

The above contempt case was filed on 20.02.2025.

Initially, the 2^nd respondent Dr.K.Karthik Reddy, filed counter affidavit. It was contended, inter alia , that the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis by the security agency. The 2^nd respondent-contemnor is not the competent authority to appoint the petitioner or disengage her services. The Superintendent, CHC, entered into an agreement with TVT Group to provide certain services to the hospital. The said agency provided different services to the hospital as per the agreement. In the Area Hospitals, 100bedded 2 hospitals, for which the manpower of 18 Sanitation workers to each hospital; 50-bedded hospitals to which 9 sanitation workers to each hospital and 30-bedded hospitals to which 7 sanitation workers to each hospital, are being supplied by the agency. After the interim order, the petitioner was continued till the end of January, 2025. After receipt of notice in the contempt case, the 2^nd respondent enquired about the petitioner, and the agency informed that the petitioner herself had absented due to her personal reasons. The petitioner absented for 10 days in November 2024 and 3 days in December 2024, without any prior intimation.

This Court, suo moto, impleaded Dr.T.Jyothirmayi, present Superintendent, CHC, T.Kothapalli as a respondent in the contempt case. A

Page 5 of 6

reply affidavit was filed by Dr.T.Jyothirmayi. It was contended that she assumed as Superintendent on 04.09.2025. On verification of the records and upon examination of the information furnished by the agency, she came to know that the petitioner was appointed through the TVT group. The Superintendent of CHC entered into an agreement dated 01.06.2021 with TVT group for a period of 3 years, and the same expired on 31.05.2024. Subsequently, it was extended until the execution of the agreement with the new agency on 01.10.2025. The petitioner was appointed through the TVT Group. Due to the absence of the petitioner, the agency appointed R.Meenakshi in her place from February, 2025 onwards. Despite the request made by the deponent, the agency is not accepting the petitioner due to her irregular attendance.

A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner denying the averments in the respective counter-affidavits.

Heard Sri G.Simhardi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Raju, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit and reply, respectively.

The writ petition filed by the petitioner, along with 2 others, is still pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities violated the interim order, and the said violation is intentional. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it was pleaded that the petitioner was continued till the end of January, 2025 and thereafter the agency terminated the petitioner, since the petitioner absented herself from attending the duties. In fact, the petitioner was engaged through TVT Group, and later, another agency started supplying manpower from 01.10.2025.

Page 6 of 6

The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the behest of the local MLA, the petitioner was disengaged and hence, the respondent authorities violated the interim order. This Court is not persuaded by the said contention.

To punish the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, the act done by the respondents/ contemnors must be deliberate and intentional. In fact, as seen from the averments in the counter affidavit and reply, the petitioner was continued, till the end of January, 2025. The same was not denied by the petitioner. If the agency disengages the services of the petitioner due to her irregular attendance, the respondents cannot be held liable for the same. There is no contractual obligation between the petitioner and the respondents. In fact, more allegations are made against the local MLA, and there is no direction against the said MLA in the writ petition.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any deliberate violation to punish the respondents.

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is Dismissed. No order as to costs.

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

__________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

PVD

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner, along with two others, filed W.P.No.21576 of 2024 seeking declaration that the action of respondents 4 and 6 (District Coordinator of Hospital Services and MLA Datla Subba Raju) in orally directing the petitioner not to attend duties from 01.10.2024 at the 5th respondent-CHC, T.Kothapalli, was illegal and arbitrary.¶¶37
Prior proceeding
Interim order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in the writ petition (dated 27.09.2024) directing the 4th respondent, District Coordinator of Hospital Services, to continue the petitioner's services per her appointment/contract terms; granted after observing the MLA's letter dated 09.09.2024 seeking removal of the petitioner and others and the ensuing oral directions.¶¶38
Prior proceeding
Per the affidavit supporting the contempt case, after the interim order the petitioner was continued till 02.02.2025; the Superintendent of CHC, T.Kothapalli then orally directed her not to attend duties from 03.02.2025.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
The contempt case was filed on 20.02.2025.¶¶42
Prior proceeding
The 2nd respondent (then) Dr.K.Karthik Reddy filed a counter affidavit: petitioner engaged on contract by the security/TVT agency; he was not competent to appoint or disengage her; petitioner continued till end of January 2025; agency reported she absented herself (10 days in November 2024, 3 days in December 2024) for personal reasons.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
By court order dated 01.05.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2025, respondents R1, R3, R4 and R5 were dismissed as not pressed.¶¶13
Prior proceeding
IA No.3 of 2025 (S.151 CPC) prayed for recall of the bailable warrant issued on 14-08-2025 against the 2nd respondent in CC No.538 of 2025; its individual disposal is not stated.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
This Court suo motu impleaded Dr.T.Jyothirmayi, present Superintendent of CHC, T.Kothapalli, as respondent No.2 by court order dated 14.11.2025.¶¶14
Prior proceeding
Reply affidavit of Dr.T.Jyothirmayi: she assumed charge as Superintendent on 04.09.2025; the CHC Superintendent had entered into an agreement dated 01.06.2021 with TVT group for 3 years, which expired on 31.05.2024.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
Same reply: the TVT arrangement stood extended until execution of the agreement with the new agency on 01.10.2025; on the petitioner's absence the agency appointed R.Meenakshi in her place from February 2025 onwards and, despite requests, declined to accept the petitioner back citing irregular attendance.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the averments in the respective counter-affidavits.¶¶47
Prior proceeding
At the hearing, counsel on both sides merely reiterated their pleadings; the underlying writ petition remains pending.¶¶50