\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE mil PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI^ CONTEMPT CASE NO: 888 OF 2020 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the Respondents herein for willfully and deliberately violating the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 17.7.2019 in W.P.No.9217/2019 dbder Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. >• K'.. - BETWEEN:- Swayam Sakthi Daily Newspaper, Shop No. 15, Municipal Complex, Narasaraopet Road, Vinukonda,J'Guntur District, D. Yedukondalu. rep., by its Editor ...PETITIONER AND 1. Sri Abdul Rafeeq,, Deputy; Director, Information and Public Relations Guntur. , . 2. Sri S. Mahaboob Basha,,^ Ddputy Director, Information Relations, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 3. Sri K. Narayana Reddy,, Assistant Director, Information Relations, Prakasam District at Ongole. and Public and Public ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:- SRI PRAKASH BUDDARAPU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 2 & 3:- G.P FOR HOME & GENERAL The Court made the following ADMINISTRATION (AP) ■ ■ '.'j APHC010249452020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] 4 ' . >■" WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 888/2020 Between; ...PETITIONER Swayam Sakthi Daily Newspaper, AND ...CONTEMNOR(S) Sri Abdul Rafeeq and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PRAKASH BUDDARAPU Counsel for the Contemnor{S); 1 .GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (AP) The Court made the following ORDER; The above contempt case has been filed complaining of non implementation of the order dated 17.07.2019 in W.P.No.9217 of 2019. The petitioner filed aforementioned writ petition to declare the inaction of the respondents in acting following the State and District Level Press Accreditation Committees and Media Accreditation Rules, 2005 issued in General Administration (I & PR.II) Department, dated 2. G.O.Ms.no.96 08.03.2006 as extended from time to time and denying accreditation to the representatives of the petitioner in terms of the Schedule - D(l)(a)(i) annexed to G.O.Ms.No.96, General Administrative (l&PR.II) Department 08.03.2006, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The above writ petition was disposed of, directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the concerned District Public Relation Officers of Krishna, Guntur and Prakasam Districts within two weeks and further directed the respondents 6 to 8 to consider and pass appropriate orders as per law. 4. Counter-affidavits were filed by respondents 1 to 3. In the affidavit filed by 3^^ respondent, it was stated that in pursuance of the order, the petitioner made a representation dated 26.07.2019. To dispose of the representation, the 3'"^ respondent, by a letter dated 21.08.2019 directed the petitioner to furnish some particulars. The petitioner failed to furnish the particulars. Without furnishing the particulars, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 17.06.2020. On receipt of the legal notice, a reply was given on 09.07.202020, indicating processing of the petitioner’s representation and the information sought from the petitioner. 5. There is a violation in the circulation of the figures for the period 2018- 19. The information furnished by the petitioner would reveal ineligibility for grant of accreditation. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the District Collector for orders. Thereafter, the District Collector granted two accreditations to the petitioner’s newspaper as per the eligibility. dated counter- the 6. While disposing writ petition, the Court directed the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, orders were issued. Since the orders were passed, this Court does not find the writ petition. If the petitioner considers that the any violation of the order in order passed by the authority is not per the Law, the petitioner can challenge the same before an appropriate forum. A 3 Given the facts and circumstances, this Court doesn’t find any violation as pleaded by the petitioner, and accordingly, the contempt case is closed. No order as to costs. 7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Sri Abdul Rafeeq, Deputy E).irec.tor, Information and Public Relations, Guntur. 2. Sri S. Mahaboob Basha, Deputy Director, Information and Public Relations, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 3. Sri K. Narayana Reddy, Assistant Director, Information and Public Relations, Prakasam District at Ongole. 4. One CC to Sri Prakash Buddarapu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Home & General Administration (AP), High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Three C.D Copies SSL j • • ‘ i' HIGH COURT DATED: 23/04/2025 I 2<iJUN 2025 I ^ . Current Section ^,y ORDER CC.N0.888 OF 2020 CONTEMPT CASE IS CLOSED.