Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses Review Petition in Contempt Case, Finds Petitioners Misled Court by Suppressing Auction Facts

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a review petition in a contempt case, holding it an abuse of process after finding petitioners had suppressed material facts about a completed public auction to obtain interim orders.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in an order dated 2 April 2026, dismissed a review petition filed by six individuals from SPSR Nellore District who had sought to set aside adverse observations and a cost imposition made against them in a contempt case. Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, sitting singly, found that the petitioners had approached the court with unclean hands — suppressing the fact that a public auction by the Sarvepalli Agriculture Marketing Committee had already been completed and agreements signed with successful bidders before they obtained interim orders in two separate writ petitions. The court characterised the review petition itself as an abuse of process and declined to interfere with the order dated 28 October 2024 passed in C.C. No. 5763 of 2023.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The six review petitioners are residents of Podalakuru Mandal and Gudur Town in SPSR Nellore District. They had participated in a public auction conducted by the Sarvepalli Agriculture Marketing Committee on 11 July 2023. Dissatisfied with the outcome, they submitted a representation dated 17 July 2023 — not to the fifth respondent, the Chairperson of the Marketing Committee who had conducted and finalised the auction, but to the second respondent, the Regional Joint Director at Vijayawada.

On the basis of that representation being pending, they filed W.P. No. 19940 of 2023. The court, on 9 August 2023, directed the second respondent to consider the representation within two weeks and restrained the respondents from proceeding with the auction held on 11 July 2023 in the interim.

The fifth respondent, however, had already entered lease agreements with successful bidders on 17 July 2023 and 21 July 2023 — the very dates on which the petitioners had submitted their representation and shortly thereafter. The fifth respondent also rejected the petitioners' representation by proceedings dated 12 September 2023, recording that the auction was completed and agreements had been signed.

The petitioners then filed W.P. No. 25260 of 2023 challenging those proceedings dated 12 September 2023. On 26 September 2023, the court granted an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the auction held on 11 July 2023. The petitioners thereafter filed C.C. No. 5763 of 2023 alleging non-compliance with the court's earlier orders.

By order dated 28 October 2024, the court dismissed the contempt petition against the respondents and imposed costs of Rs. 2,000 each on the petitioners, recording that they had filed the contempt case for extraneous reasons, suppressed material facts, and misled the court. The review petition, I.A. No. 2 of 2024, sought to set aside those observations and the cost direction.

The Legal Issues Framed

Justice Nimmagadda framed two points for determination: first, whether a review petition in a contempt case is maintainable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; and second, whether the review petitioners were entitled to any relief on the facts.

The petitioners' counsel, Sri J.V. Phaniduth, argued that the agreements dated 17 July 2023 and 21 July 2023 were ante-dated to the interim orders of the court in W.P. No. 25260 of 2023 dated 26 September 2023, and that the fourth respondent had created those documents. He contended that the court should have exposed the respondents' conduct rather than penalising the petitioners. On maintainability, he relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in M.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala & Another, (2000) 1 SCC 666, arguing that a High Court as a court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution has plenary power to correct its own records, which would include the power of review.

Counsel for the respondents, Sri C. Sumon, Sri Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, and Sri B. Prakasam (Senior Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Marketing Committee), opposed the petition on two grounds. They submitted that a review petition in a contempt proceeding is not maintainable, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Himanshu Joshi v. Utpal Kumar and Another, 2020 SCC OnLine UTT 1127. They also maintained that the petitioners had misled the court in the review affidavit itself, falsely claiming that the fourth respondent's counsel had offered to consider the representation at the admission stage, when in fact the petitioners themselves had prayed for disposal of the representation without any such offer being made.

How the Court Reasoned

On the factual question, the court examined the affidavits filed in both writ petitions. In W.P. No. 19940 of 2023, the petitioners had themselves stated that the public auction was conducted on 11 July 2023. Their representation dated 17 July 2023 was submitted to the second respondent, not to the fifth respondent who was the tendering authority and had finalised the bids. The court noted that the petitioners had voluntarily invited orders for disposal of the representation by a higher authority, bypassing the competent authority, despite having participated in the auction themselves.

In W.P. No. 25260 of 2023, the petitioners' own affidavit stated that the representation dated 17 July 2023 was disposed of by the fifth respondent by proceedings dated 12 September 2023, which recorded that the auction was completed and agreements had been entered on 17 July 2023 and 21 July 2023. Despite knowing this, the petitioners obtained an interim stay on 26 September 2023 as if the auction had not been finalised, and then filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance.

The court held that the petitioners had misled the court by suppressing material facts and had invited interim orders on that basis. It applied the settled principle that no person is entitled to relief who comes to court with unclean hands.

On the maintainability question, the court considered the M.M. Thomas judgment at length. That judgment holds that a High Court as a court of record under Article 215 has plenary power to correct apparent errors in its records, and that such power would include the power of review in relation to errors apparent on the face of the record. The court accepted that this proposition is good law.

However, the court held that the order dated 28 October 2024 did not suffer from any apparent error or mistake of the kind contemplated in M.M. Thomas. The ratio of that judgment was therefore not applicable to the present facts.

The court then turned to Himanshu Joshi v. Utpal Kumar and Another, which draws a distinction between the High Court's inherent power to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution and its power to initiate contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Supreme Court in that case held that the two are entirely different and distinct. The power under Section 12 is governed by the special statute and its procedures, and the plenary character of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 215 cannot be imported wholesale into proceedings under Section 12. The court agreed with this reasoning and held that the review petition in a contempt case of this nature is not maintainable.

The court also found that the review affidavit itself contained a misstatement — the petitioners had claimed at paragraph 3 that the fourth respondent's counsel had submitted before the court that the representation would be considered, and that the writ petition was disposed of on that basis. The court found this to be false: the petitioners themselves had prayed for disposal of the representation without any such offer being made by the respondents' counsel.

Taking all these factors together, the court concluded that the review petition was

Outcome

Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda dismissed Review I.A. No. 2 of 2024 in C.C. No. 5763 of 2023 by order dated 2 April 2026. The order dated 28 October 2024 — dismissing the contempt petition against the respondents and imposing costs of Rs. 2,000 each on the six petitioners — stands undisturbed. Both points framed by the court were answered against the review petitioners.