IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEB TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 25 & 26 OF 701 CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 25 OF 201 Appeal filed under Section 19 of Contempt of Court Act against the Order of punishment passed by the learned Single Judge to the appellant herein, vide order 21.08.2015 made in C.C. No. 1039 of 2015. Between: E. Murali, S/o. Sri Venkaiah, Aged about 49 years, Revenue Divisional Officer, Gurazala, Guntur District, Resident of Gurazala, Guntur District. ...Appellant I Contemnor / Respondent No.1 AND 1. Sri G. Koteswara Rao, S/o. Ramakrishnaiah, Fair Price Shop Dealer, Shop No. 54, Janapadu Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District. ...Respondent / Petitioner 2. Sri S. Lakshmaiah, The Tahsildar, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District. (Respondent No.2 is not necessary party to this Contempt Appeal) ...Respondent I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015fAPPL. NO: 1040 OF 2015) 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 tb suspend the operation of the order made in C.C.No. 1039 of 2015, datfed; 21.08.2015, insofar as the Petitioner/Appellant is concerned. Counsel for the Appellant :SRI P SUBASH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 26 OF 2015 Appeal filed under Section 19 of Contempt of Court Act, against the Order of punishment passed by the learned Single Judge to the appellant herein, vide order 21.08.2015 made in C.C. No. 1039 of 2015. Between: S. Lakshmaiah, S/o. Sri Kotaiah, Aged 57 years, Tahsildar, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District, Resident of Piduguralla, Guntur District. ...Appellant / Contemnor / Respondent No.2 AND 1. Sri G. Koteswara Rao, S/o. Ramakrishnaiah, Fair Price Shop Dealer Shop No. 54, Janapadu Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District. ...Respondent / Petitioner 2. E. Murali, S/o. Sri Venkaiah, Aged about 49 years. Revenue Divisional officer, Gurazala, Guntur District, Resident of Gurazala, Guntur District. (Respondent No.2 is not necessary party to this Contempt Appeal) ...Respondent I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015fAPPL. NO: 1041 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirpumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cpurt may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order made in C.C.No. 1039 of 2015, dated: 21.08.2015, in so far as the Petitioner/ Appellant is concerned. Counsel for the Appellant :SRI P SUBASH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA The Court made the following: APHC010264672015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) *1 [3508] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R F?AGHUNANDAN RAO THE Honourable sri justice maheswara rao kuncheam CONTEMPT APPEALS Nos:25 & 26 of 2015 CONTEMr>T APPEAL NO: 25/2015 Between: E. Murall, ...APPLICANT AND Sri G Koteswara Rao and Others Counsel for the Applicant: 1.P SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA ...RESPONDENT(S) 2.. CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 26/2015 Between: S. Lakshmaiah, ...APPLICANT AND Sri G Koteswara Rao and Others Counsel for the Applicant: 1.P SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA ...RESPONDENT(S) 2.. The Court made the following Common Judgment: fperHo.«es,jus(,ce R RaghunandanRao; As these Contempt Appeals are arising out of a Common Order they are being disposed of by way of this Common Judgment. The respondent herein was running a fair price shop bearing No.54, in the Janapadu Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District. He was 2. served with an order of suspension, dated 22.08.2014, and the before the erstwhile High State of Telangana and the State of suspension was set aside, by way of a of the Court, dated 10.10.2014. same was assailed by him, by way of W.P.No.28875 of 2014, Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the Andhra Pradesh. The said order of Common Order, by the Learned Single Judge 3. After the suspension orders have been the shop of the 1®* respondent set aside, the supplies of were resumed from November-2014. However, supplies were abruptly stopped, in March-2015 and were not resumed despite representation of the 1 respondent filed C.C.No.1039 of 2015 respondent, dated 06.04.2015, Thereupon against the Revenue Divisiqnai Officer the 1 who was arrayed as the 1 respondent and the Tahsildar, who the 2"'^ respondent. A Learned Single Judge was arrayed as of the erstwhile High Court of of Telangana and the State of Andhra the counter affidavits filed. Judicature at Hyderabad for the State Pradesh, after hearing both sides and considering by the appellants had held both the appellants to be guilty of Contempt of Courts and directed imprisonment of both the respondents for four weeks in civil prison and for a fine of Rs.2 000/ - each, in default of payment of the said fine, and to suffer further imprisonment for one week. 5. Aggrieved by the said Common Order, the 1“ respondent, in the Contempt Case, filed C.A.No.25 Contempt Case, filed C.A.No.26 of 2015. 6. The case of the 1^* respondent in the Contempt Appeals supplies to his fair price shop were abruptly stopped of 2015 and the 2"^^ respondent, in the is that in March-2015 and no 3 commodities were given to him despite his representation, dated 06.04.2015. The appellants, had filed counter affidavits in which it was stated that supplies could not be made to the respondent for the month of March-2015 as he had not remitted the Demand Draft, for supply of commodities, till 07.03.2015 and that a notice had been issued to the 1"‘ respondent, on 07.03.2015, to remit the Demand Draft. It is further stated that as the 1"' respondent was refusing to receive the said notice, another notice dated 11.03.2015 was also sent and was refused to be received by the 1®^ respondent. Similarly, the appellant, in C.A.No.25 of 2015, had reiterated the contentions raised, in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant in C.A.No.26 of 2015. The appellant, in C.A.No.25 of 2015 also contended that stocks were respondent, for the month of June -2015 onwards as a challan, dated 24.06.2015 was submitted. 7. issued to the 1 The Learned Single Judge, after observing that the essential defense of the appellants was that the 1"' respondent had not submitted the Demand Drafts from the month of March-2015, had held that such a contention is unbelievable in as much as, the 1®' respondent had been a fair price shop dealer, for the past 36 years and the question of not submitting the Demand Draft in time would not arise. The Learned Single Judge also considered the allegation of the appellants that two notices, dated 07.03.2015 & 11.03.2015, had been issued to the 1"' respondent calling upon him to furnish the necessary demand drafts. The Learned Single Judge noticed that prootof receipt of the notice, by the 1®' respondent, had been filed before 8. no 4 the Court and consequently, the said contention was rejected. The Learned Single Judge also observed that it was always open to the appellants who had allegedly sent a notice, to send the same by Registered Post, and non issuance of such notice by way of Registered Post renders the pontention of the appellants, about service of notice of these two notices, highly suspect. The Learned Single Judge also took the view that there was no denial, by either appellant, of receipt of the representation of the 9. respondent, dated 06.04.2015. The Learned Single Judge took the view that the appellants having received such a representation, had not given any explanation as to why the said representqfion was not considered by them St and as such, the version of the appellants that it was the refusal of the 1 respondent to pay the necessary amounts which had resulted in non supply of essential commodities is false. Sri P. Subash, learned counsel for the appellant, in C.A.No.25 of 2015 and the Learned Government Pleadef for the appellant, in C.A.No.26 of 2015 have taken this Court through the rnaterial filed along with the appeal including the notices that are said to have been sent to the 1®‘ respondent. 10. Learned counsel, on the basis of the said documents and the material contend that the Learned Single Judge ought to have accepted the version of the appellants, that the 1®‘respondent had refused to remit the necessary funds and in such circumstances, the non supply of essential commodities cannot be held to be a violation of the directions of the Court. 5 The admitted facts of the case are that the supply of essential commodities, to the 1®‘ respondent had been resumed from November-2014. These supplies were stopped, in March-2015. The 1®‘ respondent had made a representation, dated 06.04.2015, complaining of stoppage of supply of essential commodities with a request for resumption of such supplies. The 11. receipt of this representation is not denied by the appellants. Despite receipt of this representation, the appellants have not replied to the representation nor taken action for resuming of supply of the essential commodities. The contention of the appellants that the two notices, dated 12. 07.03.2015 and 11.03.2015, had been served on the 1®^ respondent, to remit the necessary funds, for supplying of essential commodities acceptable. There is no signature of the 1®^ respondent on either notice, to show that he had acknowledged receipt of these notices. Further, the 1 respondent has categorically denied receipt of these notices. Subsequent attempts of the appellants to demonstrate service of notice by showing affixture of signature of other persons and claim of affixtureon the shop of the 1®‘ respondent is also not borne out by any material which can be believed by is not St this Court. In the circumstances, this Court affirms the findings of the 13. Learned Single Judge that there was non-compliance and violation of the directions of the Court amounting to the Contempt of Courts. On the question of sentence, Sri P. Subash, learned counsel 14. would contend that the appellant, in C.A.No.26 of 2015 has already retired 6 and the appellant, in C.A.No.25 of 2015 is still in service and an Order qf imprisonmentwould mar his career. Sri P. Subash, learned counsel for the appellant, in C.A.No.25 of 2015, has already offered his unconditional apology and would submit that a 15. lenient view be taken. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents would pontend the appellant, in C.A.No.26 of 2015, had been held guilty in a similar case and cannot be granted any lenience in the matter. 17. Keeping in view of the fact that the Orders in the Contempt Case had been passed more than nine years back and keeping in view of the fact that the appellant, in C.A.No.25 of 2015 has further career prospects, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served by cpnfirming the conviction of both the appellants but modifying the sentence by deleting the sentence of simple imprisonment in civil prison and affirming the direction of payment of fine by both the appellants. 18. Accordingly, these Contempt Appeals are partly allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUECOPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Registrar(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Section Officer, Originai Side Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Amaravath\. 1. The 2. The * 3. Sri E. Murali, S/o. Sri Venkaiah, Aged about 49 years, Revenue Divisional officer, Gurazala, Guntur District, Resident of Gurazala, Guntur District. 4. Sri G. Koteswara Rao, S/o. Ramakrishnaiah, Fair Price Shop Dealer, Janapadu Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District. Shop No. 54, 5. Sri S. Lakshmaiah, The Tahsildar, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District. 6. One CC to Sri. P Subash, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri. Papaiah Peddakula Advocate [OPUC] 8. Three CD Copies PR vna HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 25 & 26 OF 2015 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL