AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. Srilekha Poojari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Praneetha Reddy, learned standing counsel representing Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent on record.
Complaining violation of the orders of this Court dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024, the present Contempt Case is filed.
PERUSED THE RECORD:-
The relevant portion of the order of this Court, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024 is extracted hereunder:-
11.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submission of both the learned counsel on record, the Writ petition is the learned counsel on disposed of at the admission stage, directing the before the petitioner herein to file a fresh application authority within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order thereafter the respondent No.2 herein on receipt of the said application shall consider the same in accordance to law, within a period of one(01) week taking into consideration the view taken by the High Courts and Supreme Court in all the Judgments referred to and extracted above without reference to the pendency of the proceedings in C.C.No.479 of 2019, subject to the following conditions:
i)The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit in C.C.No.479 of 2019, pending on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal stating that he will not leave India during pendency of the said C.C. without permission of the Court and that he will co-operate with trial Court in concluding the proceedings in the said C.C.;
ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two (02) weeks therefrom;
iii) The petitioner herein shall submit certified copy of aforesaid undertaking before the Respondent No.2 Passport Officer for renewal of his passport;
iv) The Respondent No.2-Passport Officer shall consider the said application in the light of the observations made by this Court herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioner for renewal of his passport in accordance with law, within two (03) weeks from the date of said application;
v)On renewal of the Passport, the petitioner herein shall deposit the original renewed Passport before the trial Court in C.C.No.479 of 2019; and
vi) However, liberty is granted to the petitioner herein to file an application before the trial Court seeking permission to travel aboard and it is for the trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law.
However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
The relevant portion of the order of this Court, dated 12.07.2024 passed in C.C.No.1190 of 2024 is extracted hereunder:-
3.Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent brings on record the proceedings No.HYD/843/28(7)/POL/LC/2024, dated 03.07.2024 issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad and submits that the order of this Court dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024 has been complied with, since the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad had issued passport bearing No.Y4289612 dated 02.07.2024 which is valid up to 01.07.2025 to the petitioner herein.
4.Taking into consideration the said submissions made by the Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and duly bringing the said proceedings dated 03.07.2024 on record, the present Contempt Case is closed. However, there is no order as to costs
It is averred at para No.10 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in support of the present contempt case as under:-
10.It is submitted that, hence I have filed a contempt petition of Contempt case No. 1190 of 2024 against Respondent, since violated the directions of the Hon'ble court, immediately after filing of the contempt case, Regional passport officer, Hyderabad had issued passport bearing No. Y4289612 dated on 02-07-2024 which is valid upto 01-07-2025, hence purpose been served, contempt case got closed on dated 12.07.2024 by this Hon'ble High Court.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts-forth the following submissions:-
The petitioner received a passport in pursuance to the order of this Court, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024. ii) The Regional passport Officer, Hyderabad had issued passport bearing No.Y4289612, on 02.07.2024 to the petitioner, which was valid up to 01.07.2025. iii) Thereafter, after expiry of due date i.e.,01.07.2025, the petitioner filed an application to renew the passport as per the directions of this Court vide its order, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024. iv) However, the request of the petitioner had not been considered and therefore, the inaction on the part of the respondent to renew the passport is in clear violation of the orders of this Court, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024, hence the respondent is liable to be punished for the contempt of this Court.
Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent mainly puts-forth the following submissions:-
Complaining violation of the orders of this Court, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024, the petitioner on an earlier occasion approached this Court by filing Contempt Case No.1190 of 2024.
ii) In compliance to the direction of this Court, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024, the Regional passport Officer, Hyderabad had issued passport bearing No.Y4289612, on 02.07.2024 to the petitioner, which was valid up to 01.07.2025, and bringing the same on record, this Court vide its order, dated 12.07.2024 closed C.C.No.1190 of 2014 filed by the petitioner herein complaining violation of the orders of this Court, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024.
iii) In view of the fact that the respondent Authorities complied with the orders of this Court, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024, the petitioner cannot file a fresh contempt case complaining violation of orders of this Court, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024, after expiry of passport in July, 2025.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contends that the respondent had duly complied with the order of this Court, and the present contempt case needs to be closed.
This Court takes note of the fact that the petitioner even filed an application seeking issuance of passport after July, 2025, and the said application of the petitioner is pending consideration by the respondent herein, the petitioner however had not received a passport as on date. This Court opines that the orders of this Court, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024 had been duly complied with and the petitioner had been issued passport which fact had even been observed in the order of this Court, dated 12.07.2024 passed in C.C.No.1190 of 2024, which had been filed by the petitioner on an earlier occasion complaining violation of the orders of this Court, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024 and hence, the petitioner cannot come up again by filing the present contempt case complaining violation of orders of this court, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and duly considering the order of this Court, dated 12.07.2024 passed in C.C.No.1190 of 2024 (referred to and extracted above), this Court opines that in view of the fact that the petitioner had received the passport bearing No.Y4289612, on 02.07.2024, which was valid up to 01.07.2025 in compliance to the directions of this Court, dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.569 of 2024, there is no contempt as alleged by the petitioner as observed by this Court in the earlier order of this Court dated 12.07.2024 passed in C.C.No.1190 of 2024 (referred to and extracted above). Accordingly, the present contempt case is closed. It is however, open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies as are available under law. However, there shall be no order as to costs.