Contempt filed alleging violation of a writ order setting aside passport impounding. Court found no willful violation as respondent released passport after petitioner approached them on 18.03.2019; petitioner should have approached before travel. Case closed.
Contempt case closed; miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No. 476 of 2019
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the order dt.17.08.2018 passed in WP.No.24230 of 2018, wherein and whereby this Court passed the following order;
Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that though the order of impounding is set aside by this Court, the passport of the petitioner was seized at Chennai Air Port when he was traveling to Srilanka, on the ground that his pass port was impounded, which is in violation of the orders passed by this Court. He also submits that the respondent inspite of complying the orders of this Court, kept the issue pending.
On the other hand learned Counsel for respondent, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that petitioner approached the respondent’ office with a request to release his passport on 18.03.2019 along with a copy of the order dt.17.08.2018 passed by this Court in WP.No.24230/2018, and thereafter, the respondent authorities have taken steps for release of the petitioner’s passport and intimated the
2
same to the petitioner vide letter dt. 21.03.2019 asking the petitioner to approach the respondent’s office on any working day and collect his passport; and that the said letter was sent to the petitioner through speed post and the petitioner has received and acknowledged the same. It is further stated that despite receiving the said letter, the petitioner did not approach the respondent’s office, therefore, by letter dt. 25.03.2019, the respondent has dispatched the original passport of the petitioner to his address through speed post and that the petitioner has received his original passport and acknowledged the same, as such, there is no violation of the orders passed by this Court.
In this case, it is to be seen that this Court vide order dt.17.08.2018 has set aside the order of impounding dt.05.07.2018; that the date on which the petitioner was traveling to Srilanka i.e. 16.03.2019, there was no order of impounding is operating. But, it is not known why the respondent authorities have seized the passport of the petitioner, while he was traveling to Srilanka on 16.03.2019.
In the counter affidavit it is stated that petitioner has approached the respondent authorities only on 18.03.2019 seeking release of the passport and thereafter the respondent authorities have taken action on 21.03.2019 for release of the passport and the petitioner has also received his original passport on 25.03.2019. Petitioner should have approached respondents seeking implementation of order passed by this Court before undertaking journey, but, only approached on 18.03.2019; immediately on
3
21.03.2019, the respondent authorities have taken action for implementation of the order in the writ petition.
Disputing the aforesaid facts, no reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since petitioner’s original passport is already released by the respondent authorities in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition, I do not see any willful violation of the orders passed by this
Court.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the Contempt Case is
closed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous
petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
03.01.2020 tk
4
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.476 of 2019
Dt.03.01.2020.
tk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner committed contempt by traveling with a seized passport after the court had set aside the impounding order.
Whether the delay by the petitioner in approaching the respondent authorities constitutes violation of the earlier writ order.
Petitioner
Respondent authorities
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
