APHC010125722015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 18/2015 Between: K.Sivannarayana Murthy, ...APPLICANT AND Rayani Koteswara Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 19/2015 Between: K.Sivannarayana Murthy, ...APPLICANT AND Smt Bareddy Sival Lakshmi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 20/2015 Between: K.Sivannarayana Murthy, ...APPLICANT AND Challa Kasi Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P SAI SURYA TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY 2 The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) Since all the three contempt appeals arise out of a common order, all the cases are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2. In all these cases, the respondents were Fair Price Shop Dealers against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated and suspension of the fair price license was ordered. Aggrieved by these proceedings, the petitioners approached the Erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P Nos.25483, 25486 and 25505 of 2014. 3. In all these cases, the learned Single Judge of the Erstwhile High Court, by an order, dated 09.09.2014, had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, to consider the explanations filed by the respondents and pass final orders on the said explanations. The learned Single Judge had also directed that the respondents should be continued as Fair Price Shop Dealers till such orders are passed. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after considering the explanations, withdrew the disciplinary proceedings against the respondents, by orders passed in 08.06.2015. However, the respondents herein filed contempt case Nos.649, 951 and 644 of 3 2015, contending that the appellant herein, despite the orders dated 09.09.2014, had stopped supply of essential commodities to their fair price shops for the period January to April, 2015. The respondents also contended that the appellant to cover up the violation of the orders of the Court had forcibly obtained leave applications from all the three respondents, after getting certificates from a Doctor to the effect that they were not in good health and required rest. The respondents contended that by misusing these leave applications, the appellant and others had handed over the distribution of essential commodities to the friends and relatives of the local politicians, of the party in power, and such action was a blatant and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court. 5. The appellant herein took the stand that the respondents themselves had applied for leave on the ground of ill health and such leave was granted after enquiry. The appellant contended that it is on account of this grant of leave that alternative arrangements were made for supply of essential commodities and supply of essential commodities were resumed after the respondents had reported that they are willing to continue as Fair Price Shop Dealers and they are in a position to run the fair price shops. 4 6. The learned Single Judge of the Erstwhile High Court, by order dated 17.07.2015 in contempt case Nos.649, 951 and 644 of 2015, had held that the version of the appellant about leave being obtained was not correct as no leave had been granted and consequently, there was violation of the directions of this Court. The learned Single Judge also took the view that while the non-supply of essential commodities from 18.03.2015, when the respondents had reported for duty, is also a violation of the directions of the Court. On this basis, the learned Single Judge held the appellant to be guilty of Contempt of Court in all the three cases and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of three months. It may also be noted that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who was also one of the contemnors in the contempt case was exonerated. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed present appeals. 7. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the finding of the learned Single Judge that applications for leave were not made as no leave was granted is factually not correct. He would submit that the pleadings in the contempt case filed by the respondents themselves state that leave applications has been given. However, the respondents also took the plea that they were obtained forcibly. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the non-supply of essential 5 commodities, from March, 2015 was on account of the respondents not producing demand drafts against the value of the essential commodities that are to be handed over to the respondents. He submits that in the absence of such demand drafts, the question of supply of essential commodities would not arise and there was no violation of the directions of this Court by the appellant. 8. Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand, would submit that these applications for leave were forcibly obtained from the respondents and the entire action of the appellant was high handed and in clear defiance of the directions of this Court. The learned counsel would submit that this was a deliberate act of defiance of the direction of this Court and should not be treated leniently. 9. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would go to show that the learned Single Judge has not gone into the question of whether the applications for leave said to have been submitted by the respondents were obtained forcibly or otherwise. The learned Single Judge took the view that no such leave proceedings had been initiated at all as there was no grant of leave. We are unable to accept the view of the learned Single Judge, in as much as pleadings in the contempt case would state that application for leave were made. 6 However, these applications as said to have been obtained forcibly from the respondents. As this aspect has not been gone into by the learned Single Judge, we are unable to move any further in this direction. However, we must hold that the view of the learned Single Judge that no leave application was filed, cannot be affirmed. 10. On the question of non-supply of essential commodities from March, 2015, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the normal practice is that the dealer produces the demand draft for the value of the essential commodities that are to be supplied to him and only thereafter, the essential commodities are supplied to the dealers. The learned Senior Counsel states that since no such demand draft was produced by the respondent, essential commodities could not be supplied to the respondents and there was no violation of the orders of the Court. The contention of the essential commodities could not be supplied to the respondents, on account of non-submission of demand drafts is not found anywhere in the pleadings in the counter affidavit filed in the contempt proceedings. The said contention is a belated contention, which was not raised before the learned Single Judge. 11. In the circumstances, we upheld the order of conviction passed by the learned Single Judge. However, we are informed that the 7 appellant has since retired from service. Taking into account the fact that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent No.3 were also dropped by June 2015 and that the appellant has now retired, we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence to a fine of Rs.2000/- only in each of the cases and the sentence relating to imprisonment is set-aside. The said fine be deposited within a period of four (4) weeks, failing which, the appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment of two (2) weeks in each of the cases. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 21.01.2025 GVK 8 287 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT APPEAL Nos.18, 19 & 20 of 2015 Date: 21.01.2025 GVK