APHC010241802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1330/2025 Between: 1. NEDURUMALLI SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/O RAJAGOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC EX-SERVICEMAN, R/O. D.NO.26-16- 75, VAISHNAV NILAYAM, KAVERI AVENUE, HANUMAN JUNCTION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MS VISHWANJALI M GAIKWAD, Regional Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam RPO Range, Visakhapatnam, Near P.F.Office, Beside Rythu Bazar, Marripalem VUDA Layout, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam ...CONTEMNOR 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 pleased to punish the Respondents herein under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilfully and intentionally disobeying the order dated 20.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.20702 of 2024 by this Honble Court and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner herein/ respondent on 03.09.2025 in CC No. 1330 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner herein/ respondent on 16.09.2025 in CC No. 1330 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. K KRISHNA BUSHAN CHOWDARY(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO:1330 OF 2025 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 20.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.20702 of 2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents intentionally disobeyed the orders dated 20.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.20702 of 2024. He further submits that the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition is for renewal of passport for a period of ten years, considering the same, this Court vide order dated 20.09.2024 directed the respondents to renew the passport of the petitioner without referring to the criminal case vide C.C.No.112 of 2021 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, SPSR Nellore District, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. He further submits that even though this Court specifically directed for renewal of the passport of the petitioner without referring to the criminal case, for one reason or the other, the respondents renewed the passport for a period of one year only, which is nothing but violation of the orders of this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred the present contempt case. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents filed Counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated as follows: “ the above fact clearly indicates that the petitioner is well aware of the fact that RPO, Vijayawada is primarily concerned with the subject matter of the case of W.P.No.20702 of 2024 in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. However the petitioner did not made RPO, Vijayawada as party to the case instead the petitioner had knowingly, willfully and wrongly made Regional Passport Office, Visakhapatnam represented by its Regional Passport Officer as a party to the case in W.P.No.20702 of 2024. It is submitted that in response to para nos. 5 to 9 that in compliance of the order dated 20.08.2024 in W.P.No.20702 of 2024, RPO, Vijayawada issued a reasoned order dated 09.12.2024 to the petitioner by intimating the petitioner of the facts about the closure of the file of petitioner’s passport application due to non-response from the petitioner and advised the petitioner to apply again under re-issue category along with declaration/ undertaking. Copy of the reasoned order dated 09.12.2024 is being filed as R6. As advised by the RPO, Vijayawada the petitioner applied for re-issue of passport vide file No.VJ2077208116324 at RPO, Vijayawada on 13.12.2024. a passport bearing No.C6775695 has been issued to the petitioner on 02.01.2025 by the RPO, Vijayawada having validity upto 01.01.2026. Copy of the preview of the passport bearing No.C6775695 is being filed as Annexure R7.” 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court specifically directed the respondents to renew the passport of the petitioner without referring to the criminal case vide C.C.No.112 of 2021 on the file of V 5 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, SPSR Nellore District. It is appropriate to extract the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.20702 of 2024: “In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner, and renew his passport, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the Criminal Case vide C.C.No.112 of 2021on the file the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 19. Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior permission from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court. However, this order shall not preclude the prosecution from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner for any other purposes. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. On perusal of the orders of this Court, it is observed that this Court directed the respondents to renew the passport but not indicated the period of renewal. Even though the petitioner prayed for renewal of passport for a period of ten years, the same was not indicated in the order of this Court. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents in their counter affidavit, as per the Ministry’s GSR 570(E) Notification dated 25.08.1993, when a criminal case is pending against the applicant, the applicant has to produce either an Acquittal Order or No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Court below where case is pending along with GSR 570(E) undertaking. But, if the Court gives permission to the applicant to travel abroad and directs the Respondent Authorities to issue passport, the Respondents will comply the order in accordance with the GSR 6 570(E). In the absence of specific period in any direction/ instructions by the Court or any authority, the respondent authority is empowered to renew the passport only for a period of one year when the applicant suffers with pending criminal cases. In view of the statutory bar on the part of the respondents, when the criminal cases are pending against the applicants, unless there is a direction for a specific period, the respondents are entitled for renewal of passport only for a period of one year. In the case on hand, in compliance of the orders of this Court, the respondents renewed the passport for a period of one year in the absence of specific period in the order of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any contempt in renewing the passport of the petitioner. In view of the same, no further orders are necessary. 7. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 18.02.2026 BSP 7 105 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No.1330 of 2025 18.02.2026 BSP