TENNETI v. SRI SAIKANTH VARMA, THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
law if they find any deviations, the writ petition is disposed of directing
Provisions considered
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ss. 10, 12
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
- APMC Act, 1955 ss. 452(1), 461(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Given the subsequent developments, this Court does not find any violation of the order dated 07.02.2024, passed in W.P.No.3200 of 2024. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY…
Judgment
Cause title
1. SRI SAIKANTH VARMA, THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM ITS COMMISSIONER, REP.BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM.
2. SRI RAGHUNANDAN RAO, THE ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER, ZONE-III, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 herein for willfully violating the clear, categorical and mandatory orders passed by W.P.No.3200 of 2024, dated 07.02.2024 under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass this Hon'ble Court IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 2 direct the respondents herein to initiate action against theviolaters i.e. the respondents 3 and 4 in the said writ petition by stopping the construction and 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 permit me to engage a new Advocate without insisting on the No Objection Vakalat from my earlier counsel, in the interest of justice, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SAIRAM MURTHY Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. J DILEEP KUMAR The Court made the following: ::
ORDER::
Heard Sri Y.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
The above contempt case was filed complaining of the violation of the order dated 07.02.2024, passed in W.P.No.3200 of 2024.
Operative part
The petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition to declare the inaction on the part of the Commissioner, the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, regarding the alleged illegal construction made by respondents 3 and 4 in D.No.1-14-6, SBI Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam District. The writ petition was disposed of, and the operative portion of the order reads as follows:
In view of the submission of learned Standing counsel that the respondent authorities will take necessary action in accordance with law if they find any deviations, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take necessary steps in accordance with law. No costs.
3
In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was specifically pleaded the petitioner made a representation dated 23.03.2024 and thereafter, another representation dated 30.04.2024. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, contending, 5. inter-alia, that the petitioner filed another writ petition vide W.P.No.12184 of 2024, wherein an interim order was passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 on 13.05.2024. The 2nd respondent issued notices under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the APMC Act, 1955, to respondents 3 and 4.
A rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioner. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the officials of the Corporation to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take steps in accordance with law. It appears that after making two representations, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12184 of 2024, wherein a coordinate bench of this Court granted an interim order on 13.05.2024. Pursuant thereto, notices under Sections 452 (1) and 461(1) of the APMC Act, 1955, were issued to the respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition.
Given the subsequent developments, this Court does not find any violation of the order dated 07.02.2024, passed in W.P.No.3200 of 2024. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 02.01.2026 SNI 4 264 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO:2853/2024 Date: 02.01.2026 SNI
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: law if they find any deviations, the writ petition is disposed of directing
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — ss. 10, 12; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; APMC Act, 1955 — ss. 452(1), 461(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 02 Jan 2026. The bench was SUBBA REDDY SATTI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.