THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.787 of 2010 Dated 21st June, 2010 Between: S. Rahul Reddy. …Petitioner And The Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Hyderabad, and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. P Lakshmi Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri N.V. Ramanujam, learned standing counsel for Central Government The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 19.03.2010 passed in W.P.No.5244 of 010. I have heard Ms. P. Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.V. Ramanujam, learned standing counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner’s passport was found misplaced when the same was in the custody of his agent in London. However, the Indian High Commission, through its letter dated 08.09.2009, sent the petitioner’s passport to respondent No.2 with a request to return the same to the petitioner. Through letter dated 29.12.2010, respondent No.2 required the petitioner to apply for a duplicate passport. The petitioner filed W.P.No.5422 of 2010 questioning the said letter. After hearing both the sides, this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 19.03.2010, permitting the petitioner to apply for a duplicate passport and directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s application, if made, and return the original passport along with the documents, if any received from the Indian High Commission at London, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner. Alleging wilful disobedience on the said order, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case. After taking time for instructions, learned standing counsel submitted before the Court that respondent No.2 has fully complied with the order of this Court by not only issuing the duplicate passport to the petitioner but also returning the original passport sent by the Indian High Commission at London. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, while admitting to the said fact, submitted that respondent No.2 has not returned to the petitioner, the documents such as degree certificates etc., Whereas, learned standing counsel stated that respondent No.2 has not received any documents along with the petitioner’s original passport. In support of his submission, the learned standing counsel invited by attention to the letter dated 08.09.2009 of the Indian High Commission at London and also letter dated 10.07.2009 of U.K. Border Agency. A perusal of these two letters would clearly indicate that what was sent to respondent No.2 was the original passport of the petitioner and there was no reference whatsoever to any of other documents including the degree certificate of the petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, by returning the original passport and issuing duplicate passport, respondent No.2 has complied with the order passed by this Court. The learned standing counsel has explained to the Court the slight delay in complying with the order by stating that the Police enquiry has consumed more time than expected. Having regard to the above, I am of the opinion that the respondents have not wilfully violated the order of this Court. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is entitled to avail his remedies according to law for obtaining the documents from the person in possession. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st June, 2010 GHN 787 of 2010 This 16852 of 2007 This is an application to stay appointment of respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer of ..Village,…Mandal,…District. A perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that though the writ petition is pending for grant .threeyers, no interim order has been granted. Therefore, it is presumed that respondent No.4 is functioning as a dealer. In my opinion, balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the petitioner to suspend the appointment of respondent No.4 at this length of time. The application is accordingly dismissed.