The regularization of unauthorized constructions under a statutory penalization scheme does not amount to willful disobedience of a court order unless a deliberate intent to defy the court is established, as contempt jurisdiction is summary and focuses on willful disobedience.

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 punish the respondents for non-compliance of the orders of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.No.8707/2019, dated 11-07-2019 passed by Hon'ble Justice Smt Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

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 implead the 2nd respondent as a proper and necessary party in the C.C.No.1230/2021 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 implead the proposed respondent as respondent No.2 in C.C.No. 1230/2021 and pass.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

1. .

2. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI

The Court made the following order:

1. This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8707 of 2019.

2. Heard Sri P.R.K.Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that when the authorities failed to remove the illegal constructions made by one Kotla Naga Satyanarayana Gupta, despite the same having been brought to their notice through a representation, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8707 of 2019. He further submitted that during the course of arguments in the said Writ Petition, learned standing counsel for Bhimavamam Municipality submitted that the said Naga Satyanarayana Gupta-respondent No.5 (unofficial respondent) has no valid permission for the construction. Consequently, this Court vide order dated 11.07.2019 directed the Commissioner, Bhimavaram Municipality to take appropriate action in accordance with law on the petitioner’s representation dated 07.06.2019 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.5. He further submitted that despite such direction, the respondent authorities neither passed any orders on the petitioner’s representation nor initiated any action against the unauthorized constructions, however, by endorsement dated 12.02.2021, the authorities informed the petitioner that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 therein was civil in nature and the Municipality had no right to interfere in such civil disputes. He further submits that the dispute is with regard to unauthorized construction made by unofficial respondent without any sanction plan and without leaving setbacks which is not a civil dispute and there is clear violation of building permission rules. Hence, prayed to punish the respondents for no-compliance of the orders of this Court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2, while reiterating the contents of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, contended that as on the date of passing of the order in Writ Petition No.8707 of 2019, there was no building permission in favour of the unofficial respondent. Subsequently, the unofficial respondent made an application under the Building Penalization Scheme (BPS) and the constructions were regularized by the Bhimavaram Municipality in accordance with the said scheme. She further submitted that in complia