1. Contempt case for non-compliance of court order directing payment of arrears for execution of work. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(AP) 1266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA, J.
Kalidindi Suryanarayana Raju, S/o. Padmaraju – Petitioner
Versus
Peeyush Kumar Ias, Principal Secretary, Finance Department – Respondent
Contempt Case No. 3732 of 2025
Decided On : 09-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: T. Raghu, Ld. Counsel representing Sri Rambabu Koppineedi.
For the Respondents: Sri P. Naga Raju, Ld. Counsel, Sri K. Mallikharjuna Moorthy, Ld. Counsel.
For the Petitioner: T. Raghu, Ld. Counsel representing Sri Rambabu Koppineedi.
For the Respondents: Sri P. Naga Raju, Ld. Counsel, Sri K. Mallikharjuna Moorthy, Ld. Counsel.
Important Points
Financial stringency is not a valid ground for non-compliance with court orders for payment of dues. In cases of culpable negligence by public officials causing citizen hardship, the court may impose personal liability on officers, recoverable by the State, to ensure accountability and obedience to the law.
Subject
Administrative Law - Contempt of Court
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Contempt of Court - Compliance with judicial orders - Public officers are bound to obey directions of the court to ensure the Rule of Law; failure to comply indicates a lack of grace and an attempt to circumvent judicial mandates. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Administrative Law - Non-payment of dues - Financial stringency or lack of funds is not a valid ground to deviate from or non-comply with court orders regarding payment of bills for executed works. (Paras 12-14)
(C) Compensatory Jurisprudence - Vicarious liability vs. Personal liability - In cases of culpable neglect or arbitrary exercise of power causing harassment to citizens, the liability shifts from vicarious to personal. The State may be directed to pay compensation and subsequently recover the amount from the responsible officer to ensure accountability and prevent overburdening the public exchequer. (Paras 15-17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought recovery of arrears for execution of work. A previous court order directed the official respondents to pay a settled sum within a specified timeframe. Due to non-compliance and failure to transfer the amount, a contempt case was filed. The respondents paid the due amount on the date of the hearing.
Findings of Court:
The amount has been paid under the threat of contempt. However, the court observed that citizens suffer undue hardship and incur avoidable legal expenses when officials ignore court mandates, compelling them to approach the court repeatedly for the realization of paltry dues.
Issues: Whether financial constraints justify the non-payment of acknowledged dues and whether officials should be held personally liable for the legal costs incurred by litigants due to administrative delays.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rule of Law requires absolute obedience to judicial orders. Financial stringency is not a legitimate defense for non-payment of bills for work executed. To deter administrative lapses and protect litigants from additional legal expenses, the court may award costs personally against official respondents to be recovered by the State from the erring officers.
Result: Contempt Case is closed.
(B) Administrative Law - Non-payment of dues - Financial stringency or lack of funds is not a valid ground to deviate from or non-comply with court orders regarding payment of bills for executed works. (Paras 12-14)
(C) Compensatory Jurisprudence - Vicarious liability vs. Personal liability - In cases of culpable neglect or arbitrary exercise of power causing harassment to citizens, the liability shifts from vicarious to personal. The State may be directed to pay compensation and subsequently recover the amount from the responsible officer to ensure accountability and prevent overburdening the public exchequer. (Paras 15-17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought recovery of arrears for execution of work. A previous court order directed the official respondents to pay a settled sum within a specified timeframe. Due to non-compliance and failure to transfer the amount, a contempt case was filed. The respondents paid the due amount on the date of the hearing.
Findings of Court:
The amount has been paid under the threat of contempt. However, the court observed that citizens suffer undue hardship and incur avoidable legal expenses when officials ignore court mandates, compelling them to approach the court repeatedly for the realization of paltry dues.
Issues: Whether financial constraints justify the non-payment of acknowledged dues and whether officials should be held personally liable for the legal costs incurred by litigants due to administrative delays.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rule of Law requires absolute obedience to judicial orders. Financial stringency is not a legitimate defense for non-payment of bills for work executed. To deter administrative lapses and protect litigants from additional legal expenses, the court may award costs personally against official respondents to be recovered by the State from the erring officers.
Result: Contempt Case is closed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- tort
Table of Contents
2. Respondents argued payment was made; Petitioner admitted receipt. Petitioner initially claimed arrears; Respondents offered lesser amount. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Court noted hardship caused by repeated non-compliance and need to shift from vicarious to personal liability of officers. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Officers may be personally liable for costs when their delay forces litigants to file contempt cases for compliance. (Para 9 , 15 )
5. Contempt case closed after payment was made. No costs imposed but warned future personal costs against erring officers. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
6. Can personal liability be imposed on government officers for non-compliance of court orders?
Yes, under compensatory jurisprudence, the trend has shifted from vicarious liability of the State to personal liability of erring officers when their conduct forces litigants to approach court repeatedly. (Para 9 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
7. Is financial stringency a valid ground for delaying payment to citizens as per court orders?
No, financial stringency is no ground to deviate from or delay compliance with court orders directing payment of dues to citizens. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
8. What are the consequences of government officers repeatedly failing to comply with court orders?
The court may award costs personally against the erring officers for compelling litigants to file contempt cases, and the State may recover such costs from the officers. (Para 8 , 9 , 18 )
ORDER :
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA, J.
Heard Sri T. Raghu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri P. Nagaraju, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Sri K. Mallikarjuna Murthy, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6.
2. The present Contempt Case is filed complaining of non-compliance of the Order of this Court dated 01.08.2025 in W.P.No.5237 of 2024. The relevant portion of the Order dated 01.08.2025 is reads as under:
“2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking recovery of certain arrears in respect of the execution of work (filling of low lying lands). The Writ Petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.9,49,477/-.
3. xxxxx
4. The Written Instructions would indicate that the Writ Petitioner is entitled to the net amount of Rs.8,33,730/- after deduction of the statutory recoveries.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, having taken instructions from his client, is agreeable to accept the balance amount of Rs.8,33,730/- as full and final settlement on the condition that the said due amount may be directed to be remitted to the Writ Petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
6. Having regard to the above facts, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Writ Petition, directing the Official Respondents to pay a sum of Rs.8,33,730/- as full and final settlement within a period of eight (08) weeks from today, by completing all the inter-departmental administrative formalities by cooperation and coordination between all the concerned departments and transfer the said amount to the bank account of the Writ Petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter.”
3. The above extract, would indicate that while the Writ Petitioner claimed Rs.9,49,477/- as dues from the Official Respondents, the lesser amount offered by the Official Respondents is Rs.8,33,730/- was accepted by the Writ Petitioner without claiming any interest on the condition that the said due amount may be paid as expeditiously as possible. Taking note all these facts, this Court had liberally granted eight (08) weeks time for completing the administrative process and additional four (04) weeks for transfer of the due amount to the bank account of the Writ Petitioner.
4. Sri P. Nagaraju, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, has now submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department dated 09.03.2026. Copy of it is supplied to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the same is taken on record.
5. The Written Instruction would indicate that the due amount of Rs.8,45,003/- has been paid to the Petitioner on 09.03.2026 i.e., today.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, admits this position that the Petitioner has received the said amount.
7. In view of the latest Written Instructions that the due amount has been paid to the Petitioner on 09.03.2026, under threat of contempt, this Court is inclined to close this Contempt Case.
8. However, in public interest, before parting with this Contempt Case, this Court is inclined to take note of the hardship caused to the citizens who are compelled to approach the Court again and again due to non-payment and non-compliance of the promises made by the Official Respondents within the time fixed by this Court. This Court is also inclined to note the legal position insofar as the vicarious liability of the State and also the trite law that had shifted the vicarious liability to that of individual liability on the part of the erring Officers. This Court is also inclined to refer to the settled law that financial stringency on the part of the Respondents is no ground to delay the payments to the citizens.
9. Having regard to paras 4 & 5 of the Order of this Court dated 25.02.2026 that Writ Petitioners, who are seeking recovery of their bills, were once again compelled to approach this Court by filing Contempt Cases, this Court is of the view that filing of such cases before this Court involves lega
