APHC010264082021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1230/2021 Between:

1. DARAPU VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O LATE MADHUSUDHANA RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, RIO D.NO 20-11-25, M.R. RESIDENCY, REST HOUSE ROAD, BHIMAVARAM, BHEEMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. K VENKATA RAMA REDDY, COMMISSIONER, BHEEMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY, BHEEMAVRAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

2. K RAMACHANDRA REDDY, COMMISSIONER, BHIMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY, BHIMAVRAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. R 2 IS IMOLEADED AS OER COURT ORDER DT.18.09.2025. VIDE IA NO.1 OF 2025. IN CC NO.1230 OF 2021.

...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 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:

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