Knowledge Of Court Order Enough To Establish Contempt Even Without Formal Service To Party: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that formal service of a court order is not a prerequisite for holding a person guilty of civil contempt if it is established that the person had knowledge of the order and willfully disobeyed it. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 149]

Dismissing a contempt appeal filed by a Gram Panchayat Secretary, the Court upheld the order of a Single Judge holding him guilty of contempt for violating a status quo order by demolishing part of the writ petitioners' property before the expiry of the time granted to them to submit their explanation.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta observed:

"So, mere knowledge of the Order is sufficient. Serving the copy of the Order is not an essential requirement to hold guilty of contempt, when despite knowledge there is willful disobedience of the Court Order. Knowledge of the Order to the appellant is established in view of the discussion made above.
We are satisfied on the second essential ingredient as well that there was willful and deliberate violation of the Court‟s Order. The appellant did not wait for two weeks to enable the petitioners to file the explanation and before expiry of that period demolished the construction or part thereof on 19.03.2018 itself."

The dispute arose after the Gram Panchayat issued a notice directing the writ petitioners to remove alleged encroachments from a public road. The notice was issued pursuant to an earlier High Court order directing the authorities to consider a representation complaining of encroachments on Panchayat land.

The petitioners challenged the notice, contending that while the earlier order merely required the authorities to consider the representation, the Gram Panchayat had straightaway directed removal of the alleged encroachments without issuing a show cause notice or giving them an opportunity of hearing.

Accepting the contention, the High Court set aside the notice and directed that it be treated as a show cause notice. It further directed the Gram Panchayat to furnish the survey report to the petitioners, granted them two weeks to submit their explanation, and ordered maintenance of status quo until a fresh decision was taken after considering their explanation.

According to the writ petitioners, despite these directions, the Gram Panchayat Secretary demolished part of their property without waiting for the expiry of the two-week period. Alleging willful disobedience of the status quo order, they initiated contempt proceedings.

The Single Judge held the Secretary guilty of contempt. He was sentenced to two months' civil imprisonment and directed to reconstruct the demolished portion and restore the property to status quo ante. The Court further ordered four months' civil imprisonment if restitution was not carried out within three months and awarded costs of Rs. 10,000 to each writ petitioner.

Aggrieved by the order, the Secretary preferred the present appeal. He contended that High Court's order had not been served on him before the demolition, that he received it only later through courier, and that only the compound wall had been demolished before the work was stopped on learning of the status quo order.

The respondents, however, argued that the appellant was fully aware of the High Court's order before the demolition. They submitted that the Gram Panchayat had participated in the writ proceedings through its standing counsel, who had undertaken before the Court to furnish the survey report to the petitioners. Despite this, the appellant proceeded with the demolition without waiting for the period granted to the petitioners to submit their explanation to expire.

Examining the record, the Division Bench agreed that the order had not been formally served on the appellant before the demolition. However, it found that he had prior knowledge of the order.

The Court noted that the Gram Panchayat had acted upon the High Court's directions by furnishing the survey report. It also relied on the appellant's own admission that he contacted the standing counsel during the demolition and came to know of the status quo order.

The Bench further observed that the appellant had taken inconsistent stands in his affidavits regarding his knowledge of the order, which undermined his defence.

Reiterating that formal service of a prohibitory order is unnecessary where the person concerned has notice or knowledge of it, the Court held that the appellant's demolition of the property before the expiry of the period granted by the High Court amounted to willful violation of the status quo order.

The Court also rejected the appellant's reliance on the writ petitioners' alleged undertaking to remove the encroachments voluntarily. It held that once the High Court had directed maintenance of status quo, no demolition could be undertaken on that basis.

The Court further noted that, during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant had reconstructed the demolished compound wall and paid the costs awarded by the Single Judge. However, it held that such subsequent compliance did not wipe out the willful disobedience already committed or substitute the punishment imposed for contempt.

Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge's order, the Division Bench dismissed the contempt appeal and directed the appellant to surrender before the Registrar (Judicial) within one week.

Case Title: V. Seenaiah v. Nellore Sudhakar & Ors.

Case No.: Contempt Appeal No. 4 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri K. Keerthi Teja

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Madhavarao Nalluri

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (AP) 149