p' ?.5« IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA'Jgr WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT . THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3870 OF 2024 t3 'll -j} 7 1 'S'.'Vr. Contempt case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971, to call the contemnors herein and to punish them for willful disobedience and deliberately violating the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.4390of 2024, dated 25-07-2024. Between: G. Sri Vihan, S/o. G. Vijaya Sekhar, aged about 2 years, R/o. Flat No.303, Suvarna Residency, Opposite United Public School Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam -16, being minor represented by his father and natural guardian G. Vijaya Sekhar, S/o. G. Lakshmi Ganeswara Rao ...Petitioner AND 1. Sri A.Syam Prasad, IAS, The District Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam District, Erstwhile Vizianaagaram District. 2. M. Ramanamma, Tahsildar, Kurupam Mandal, Parvaathipuram Manyam District, erstwhile Vizianagaram District. CT is amended as per Court order dated 03 01 2025 vide IA No 1 of 2025 in CC No 3870 of 2024. ...Contemnors Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K M KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following order: n . ' - \ " APHC010443672024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3870/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER G. Sri Vihan AND ...CONTEMNOR(S) Sro A Syam Prasad las and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.KM KRISHNA REDDY 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.C.No.3870 of 2024 This Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for Respondents. In compliance of the orders of this Court dated 06.03.2025, 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in person and pleaded that they complied with the orders of this Hon’ble Court and issued physical caste certificate dated 18.03.2025 in favour of the Petitioner. In view of the issuance of caste certificate, the orders of this Hon’ble Court seems to be complied with and in view of the compliance of the orders of this Court, the presence of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 hereby dispensed with until further orders. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondents issued caste certificate in physical form but not in online form. He further submits that for the convenience of the Petitioner the online form of caste 3 C6rtificat6 is very much necessary. Therefore, there would be a direction to the Respondents to issue online caste certificate by way of uploading to the Government digital web portal. 4. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels, in the Contempt Petition this Court cannot order any other directions consequential directions as prayed for by the Petitioner. This Court passing the order observed as under: or while “11. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and on perusal of the material placed before this Court more particularly G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 02.05.2012, wherein the enquiry as well as other facts and circumstances were discussed in detail. Further, Respondent No.1 came to a conclusion by holding that the petitioner community i.e., Manne Dora should be categorized as one of the Scheduled Tribes. As long as such conclusion is continuing, it cannot be deferred by any other office of Respondent No.1 much less Respondent No.3 herein. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to have a caste certificate in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 02.05.2012.” As stated above, this Court directed the Respondents to 5. issue caste certificate in'terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 02.05.2012. It is further observed that G.O.Ms.No.15 issued for issuance of caste certificate in favour of the grand-father of the Petitioner and G.O.Ms.No.15 does not speak about any online certificate. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner should be issued online caste certificate rather than physical caste certificate cannot be enforced in the present Contempt ;4; Case. But however the Respondents are at liberty to consider the request of the Petitioner in accordance with law. In view of compliance reported by the respondents, the Contempt 6. Case is closed. Consequently, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- V. DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR f [s/v //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Sri A.Syam Prasad, IAS, The District Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam District, Erstwhile Vizianaagaram District. M. Ramanamm'a, tahsildar, Kurupam Mandal, Parvaathipuram Manyam District, erstwhile Vizianagaram District. One CC to Sri Venkata Subbaiah Pogula, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri K M Krishni Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. RAM HIGH COURT DATED:23/04/2025 ORDER CC.No.3870 of 2024 <# ^ 2 2 SEP 2025 rrMitSectiQD. I j-» >; fC/j ★ 1 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE