2026:APHC:8288 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO.4843 OF 2024

ORDER

1. This Contempt Case is filed complaining the alleged willful disobedience in implementing the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24216 of 2023.

2. The petitioner submits that he initially filed a contempt case in C.C.SR No.44977 of 2023 on 04.11.2023 through his counsel, Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy. The case was returned by the Registry and was not re-submitted. Later, the petitioner engaged the present counsel, who filed contempt case in C.C. No.4843 of 2024 on 23.12.2024 afresh. It is submitted that since the contempt petition was originally filed on 04.11.2023, the present case should be treated as a continuation of the earlier proceedings. Therefore, the period of limitation must be calculated as on 04.11.2023, and Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act does not apply to the facts of this case. The petitioner further submits that although the respondents claim that a speaking order dated 16.11.2023 was served on him, he did not receive any such order. The respondents have also not produced any proof to show that the order was served on him. Even as of now, the respondents have not complied with the orders of this Court. Hence, they are liable to be punished under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

3. On the other hand, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed a counter affidavit raising only a single contention concerning Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In Paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner received a copy of the order on 04.10.2023, and therefore, any petition for contempt ought to have been filed within one year therefrom, i.e., on or before 04.10.2024.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

5. The submission advanced by Respondent No. 4 is inconsistent with the record. A perusal of the certified copy of this Court’s order dated 20.09.2023 reveals that the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass a reasoned speaking order within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Accordingly, the respondents were required to comply with the said direction on or before 25.10.2023. It is an admitted fact that the impugned speaking order was passed on 20.09.2023.

6. The present contempt petition has been filed after a lapse of two months from the date on which the alleged contempt is stated to have committed. The respondents have not only passed the speaking order but have also placed on record proof of service of the said order on the petitioner at the address furnished in the writ petition.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present contempt petition is not maintainable under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, as it has been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed therein. For clarity, Section 20 provides as follows:

“20. Limitation for actions for contempt.

No court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.”

8. Even otherwise, on merits, the respondents have complied with the direction of this Court by passing a reasoned speaking order and serving the same upon the petitioner by registered post. Accordingly, no case for contempt is made out against the respondents. However, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the speaking orders passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, if advised.

9. In the result, contempt case is closed.

10. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.

__________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA Date:26.02.2026 SP