Dhulipala Aparna Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 December, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Dhulipala Aparna Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 December, 2024

FEE


                                     (a.How CAUSE NOTICE)
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                              (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
                    MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER

                              TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                                 :PRESENT.­

                   THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO


                              WRIT PETITION NO: 30539 OF 2024
      Between:
        1. DhulI'Pala Aparna Kuma`ri­, D/o Vasundhara sarma, Age 38Yrs, Occ



           NS:rg:a:;,NeYoerne:so:sR'2N7:::ire:t5D::t Near         chaltanya   Aprmt     Bala»
        2. KaretI­Srj Latha w w/o Kareti Pratap Kumar, Age 32, Occ Street Vendor
          27­4­904, Mythri water plant st.Balajinagar, Nellore, spsR Nellore
          DI.St.

       3. Vutukuru       vanitha,,       w/o       vutukuru    vasu,Age   50Yrs,Occ      street
          vendor,16­16­249,Chjntareddy plaem,Nellore,spsR Mythri water plant
          Nellore
       4. Damavarapu          Naveena,         w/a KrantI­    Kumar,Age 40Yes,Occ Street
          vendors,16­16­618,EIamavarj Dhinne,Nellore,spsR Nellore Dist.
       5. Nidra swapna, w/o chandrasekhar,Age 35 Yrs,Occ Street vendor,16­
          16­656,Kailasa vari stu EIammavarI' Dhinne,Nellore, spsR Nellore
         Dist.                             /
                                                                                            t




                                                                               PetI­tjO n er:
                               AND
      1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by l|ts principle

         secretary,MU and uD, AP SecretarI'ate ,Velagapudi,Guntur Dist.
      2. The Nellore MunicI'PaI Corporationu Nellore,SPSR Nellore Dist. Rep by

        its CommI'SS,­Oner.              ­I; i
          3. The Commjssjoner, ,­Ne!!ore
                                I/
                                        Municipal Corporation, NeIIore,SPSR

           Nellore Dist.

                                                                          Respondent
                    WHEREAS         the   Petitioner   above   named   through   his/her
  Advocate GUNDALA SIVA PRAsADA REDDY presented this Petition under
  Article 226 of the Constitutjoh:df !~ndia Praying that jn the Circumstances Stated

  jn the affidavit filed therewith,`the`High Court may be pleased pleased to issue
  a writ of mandamus or any appropriate order or direction to respondents to

 publish tender/e tender as per the SOP of Municipal corporation tender guide
 lines to select the street vendors at Mypadu Road, Jaffer saheb Canal
 Sy.No.138 at length 710 Mts"iNeIIore MC by publl'shl'ng in two local leading

 daily telugu News papers contrary deveating SOP norms, simply afixing a
 notice board I'S illegal arbitrary improper and Without any power Or authority

 under law and against to the Art.14,15 and  of the ConstI'tutiOn Of lndI'a;



          AND WHEREAS the High Court upon perusing the petitI'On and affidavit
 filed    herel'n   and    upon   hearih­~g +the   arguments   of srI­GUNDALA    SIVA'

 PRASADA REDDY Advocate for the Petitioners, and of GP FOR MUNICIPALI
ADMINISTRATION & URBAN ­DEVELOPMENT, for the Respondent No.1,

directed the Regl'stry to issue`Show Cause notice to sri Gundla Siva Prasad:
Reddy, Learned counsel fo+ the­`Petitioners, why action should not be initiated=
against him under contempt'of co`urfs Act.
                                                                                     /



Therefore, you viz:
 Sri Gundla siva prasad Reddy (22737), Advocate, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, AmaravatI'.


are hereby directed to shovi cause as to why action should not be inl­tiated~

against you under contempt of corirts Act
  The Court made the foIIowiing: ORDER



       Mr.Gundla Siva Prasad. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners
 argued the matter and sought for interl­m directl­on.

       on the other hand,` Ieamed Government pleader appearing for the
 respondents opposed and sought one week tI­me tO get I­nStruCtiOnS.

      At request of learned Government pleader, the matter I­s adjourned
 to tomorrow.

      Even though this court adjourned the case to tomorrow and was
intendl­ng to take up next case, the learned counsel for the petitI­OnerS
has not stopped arguing the matter and raI­Sed his voice loudly seeking
I'nterim direction. Thereby the learned counsel for the petitioners tried to
bring pressure on the court to l|ssue interI­m direction as prayed, by
                                        `5,I


raisl­ng hI­S VOI­Ce loudly. In the opinion of this court, such a behaviour is+
not expected from an Advo`caJt­e and the said conduct would attract the
PrOVl­SiOnS Of the Contempt 9f Courts Act,1971.                                        i

Issue show cause notice to sri Gundla Siva Prasad Reddy, learned
counsel for the petitioners, why action should not be I­nitjated against
him under the contempt of colJrtS Act

                            i­,^l       ­,,`­i   I,

     Post the matter on 24.1+2:2®­24 in the Moll­On List.
                             i r\   \




                                                          A AsssS:s:¥:::N:SR§#csAETS:AR
                                llTRUE COPYll

                                                      For ASSISTANT t{EuI. I . `. I_
 To]

      1. Sri Gundla Siva Prasad Reddy (22737), Advocate, High Court of
        Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
  2. Two CCs to GP MUNC!PAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVAP ,High Court
        of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] ­­
  3. One spare copy
PSR
 I,
  HIGH COURT




 Dr.KMR,J




 DATED..23/12/2024




NOTE: POST THE MATTER ON 24.12.2024 lN THE MOTION LIST.




ORDER

. |­\
?i .l#’
•l1`­

WP.No.30539 of 2024 2 3 lBEO I­fflRT`

__” {c’­. ` . I

)­*.

__._­