Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
P. Bhaskar Reddy vs Sridhar Reddy on 12 February, 2026
APHC010053632026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 452/2026
Between:
1. P. BHASKAR REDDY, S/O. PADMANABIAH, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O.
D.NO.1-5J, KANTEEPURAM VILLAGE, 515 303 BULLASAMUDRAM
POST, MADAKASIRA MANDAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. SRIDHAR REDDY, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGE NOT KNOWN. THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTIONS), APSPDCL,
PUTTAPARTHI, SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
2. MR CHANDRA NAIK, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGE NOT KNOWN. THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (OPERATIONS), APSPDCL, HINDUPUR,
SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
3. MR M RAGHU, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGE NOT KNOWN. THE DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (OPERATIONS), APSPDCL, MADAKASIRA,
SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
...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 pleased to punish the respondents for intentionally and willfully
violating the docket order Dt 24.02.2025 passed in W.P.No. 5014 of 2025, u/s
10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass
2
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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
pleased to dispense with the filing of Certified Copy of docket order dated
24.02.2025 in W.P.NO. 5014 OF 2025 of this Hon'ble High Court, in filing the
above Contempt Case othen/vise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and
hardship and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M CHINNAPA REDDY
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE NO:452 OF 2026
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience
of the orders dated 24.02.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5014 of 2025.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed the present contempt case under
Sections 10 to 12, 14, 15 and 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of
hearing the learned counsel for the respondents made a submission that the
respondents are not taking any steps for laying of electrical poles at the
petitioner’s subject land as alleged by the petitioner. The said statement was
made by the learned counsel for the respondents and was noted that as per the
instructions of the respondents. Now, the respondents have violated their own
submission made through counsel before this Court. Hence, the Contempt Case.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the instructions
obtained as on that day, he submitted the subject statement. He further submits
that as per the instructions, the respondents are taking steps to lay electrical
lines/poles within the road margin of R&B, but not at the petitioner’s land. As per
4
their understanding and as per the information furnished by the R&B Department,
today, learned counsel for the respondents also submitted fresh instructions
dated 22.01.2026, wherein, it is stated that the laying of electrical poles is within
the road margin of the R&B department only, but not through the land of the
petitioner. He further submits that if the petitioner still aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner can make an application for joint inspection, identification and
demarcation of the property between the petitioner and the R&B Department. As
long as the poles were already erected within the road margin of the R&B, the
action of laying of electrical poles at the petitioners land does not arise.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the
parties, it is observed that the mere statement of the learned counsel for the
respondents in the writ petition, during hearing of the matter cannot be construed
as an order and it cannot be enforced under the provisions of the Sections 10
and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is further observed that the said
docket order is not observed as an undertaking or an assurance given by the
learned counsel on behalf of the respondents, but it is a formal statement made
by the learned counsel for the respondents upon the instructions that the
respondents are not taking any steps for laying of electrical lines through the
petitioner’s land. Even as per the instructions as produced/ furnished today dated
22.01.2026, it indicates that laying of electrical poles was happened within the
road margin of R&B road but not within the land of the petitioner.
5
7. In view of the same, the alleged violation of the contempt case does not
arise and the petitioner has not made out a contempt in pursuance of the docket
order dated 24.02.2025 which was assailed in this contempt case.
8. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt
case shall stand closed.
________________________________
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
12.02.2026
NOTE:C.C by two(2) days
(B/o)
BSP
6
18
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
(closed)
Contempt Case No.452 of 2026
12.02.2026
NOTE:C.C by two(2) days
(B/o)
BSP