APHC010308622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Friday, the Nineteenth Day of December Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Contempt Case No: 1534 of 2025 Between: Gudipati James ...Petitioner and B. Sahadhith Venkat Trivinag, I.A.S. ...Contemnor Counsel for the petitioner: 1. M. M. M. Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the contemnor: 1. Venkata Sai Krishna Ponnuru The court made the following: 2 BSB,J C.C.No.1534 of 2025 ORDER: The contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for their willful violation of the order of this Court dated 19.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.2000 of 2025 filed by the petitioner herein. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: (a) The petitioner is a permanent dealer of fair price shop No.0837020 of Nallaguntal Village and has been running the fair price shop for the last 20 years. On 22.11.2024, the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, Giddalur, along with Village Revenue Officer, Nallaguntla, inspected the shop of the petitioner. The authorities prepared a panchanama alleging variation of stock. On 25.11.2024, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the District Collector, Prakasam District to conduct enquiry about the highhanded action and fraud played by the Enforcement Deputy Tahsildar, which was acting at the instance of one M.P.T.C. member. Further, the petitioner submitted an explanation, on 27.11.2024, to the show cause notice issued on 25.11.2024 on the allegation of shortage of P.D.S. fortified rice of 950 Kgs. (b) The petitioner filed a writ petition, W.P.No.2000 of 2025, challenging the Order dated 18.01.2025 suspending the authorisation of the petitioner in respect of the subject fair price shop. The Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 19.02.2025, directing the Sub-Collector, Markapur Town, Prakasam District / respondent No.3 to expeditiously conduct enquiry in the light of order of this High Court in C.Durga Srinivas Rao and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh1, within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the impugned proceeding gets set aside without any further order. 1 2015 SCC Online Hyd 680: (2015) 6 ALD 359) 3 BSB,J C.C.No.1534 of 2025 (c) The petitioner furnished the said order to the respondents on 28.02.2025, under an endorsement, with a request to conclude the enquiry within one month as ordered. Pursuant to the order, the respondent issued notice on 25.04.2025 directing the petitioner to submit an explanation within fifteen days. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.03.2025 denying the charges. Instead of concluding the enquiry within one month, again another notice was issued on 16.05.2025, fixing the date of hearing on 19.05.2025. The petitioner, along with villagers, attended the enquiry on 19.05.2025. The cardholders gave a representation clearly stating that they had never signed on the panchanama. Again, another notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.06.2025, fixing the date of hearing on 20.06.2025. Issuing such notice again and again without restoring the authorisation of the petitioner is violation of the order of this Court. Hence, this contempt case is filed. 3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating mainly as follows: (a) The petitioner is acquainted with all the averments made in the affidavit so that there is no violation or disobedience of the order of this Court. The respondent tendered unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the Court. In obedience to the order of this Court dated 19.02.2025, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. After receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, the case was enquired on 19.05.2025, 27.05.2025 and 20.06.2025. The statements of the petitioner and the Village Revenue Officer, Nallaguntla village were recorded. In order to run the fair price shop and to avoid inconvenience to the card holders to receive essential commodities, the shop was entrusted to the Village Revenue Officer, Nallaguntla village. As the maintenance of the fair price shop became additional work to the Village Revenue Officer, the Tahsildar, Komarole submitted proposal for temporary appointment of S.H.G. leader by name Smt. Chennareddy Alluratnamma of Nallaguntla village to avoid inconvenience to the cardholders. Accordingly, 4 BSB,J C.C.No.1534 of 2025 she was appointed as a temporary dealer of the subject fair price shop vide proceedings Rc.C/921/2024, dated 21.07.2025. (b) The petitioner filed this contempt case as the enquiry was not completed within one month as per the order. The enquiry was delayed due to other works like re-survey inspections on 18.02.2025, 05.03.2025, 11.03.2025, 22.05.2025, 07.05.2025, 13.06.2025, 17.07.2025 etc., besides work relating to land acquisition for NH-765 road and other urgent meetings etc. As the enquiry against the petitioner was completed and in obedience to the order of the High Court, the authorisation of the petitioner was restored vide proceeding Rc.C/921/2024, dated 20.08.2025. Thus, the petitioner is continuing the dealership of the subject fair price shop. (c) Aggrieved by the temporary appointment of Smt. Chennareddy Alluratnamma, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.19945 of 2025 before this High Court. On 31.07.2025, an interim order was passed in Writ Petition No.19945 of 2025, suspending the operation of order dated 21.07.2025 by which Smt. Chennareddy Alluratnamma was temporarily appointed. Since the enquiry against the writ petitioner could not be completed within one month due to administrative delay only, the petitioner was reinstated by the said proceeding dated 20.08.2025. Thus, the order of this Court has been implemented. The respondent has high regard to the High Court and its orders and there is no willful disobedience of the order of this Court at any point of time. However, in the event of any mistake on part of the respondent, he tendered unconditional apology to the Court. The respondent prayed to exonerate from the allegation and dismiss the petition. 4. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit of the respondent. The averments briefly as follows: 5 BSB,J C.C.No.1534 of 2025 (a) The proceeding dated 20.08.2025 was issued in compliance of the order in Writ Petition No.19945 of 2025 and not in compliance of the order in Writ Petition No.2000 of 2025. Though the authorisation of the petitioner got restored, without restoration of the authorisation of the petitioner, the respondent appointed a third person as the temporary dealer. As such, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.19945 of 2025. Now, in view of the interim order of stay granted against the order appointing third person as temporary dealer, the respondent contends that he complied the order in Writ Petition No.19945 of 2025. If this High Court is not inclined to consider the case in Writ Petition No.2000 of 2025, right accrued by virtue of order in Writ Petition No.2000 of 2025 shall be forfeited. (b) Moreover, the averments in the counter affidavit are silent as to whether the respondent is differing to conduct the enquiry as it was not completed within one month period or whether the respondent seeks any permission for extension of time to conduct enquiry beyond the time stipulated in Writ Petition No.2000 of 2025. Hence, it is prayed to punish the respondent for contempt of order of this Court due to willful violation of the same. 5. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, after expiry of one month period from the date of receipt of the copy of the order in Writ Petition No.2000 of 2025, the respondent has no authority to continue with the enquiry. This proposition is not acceptable for the reason that it is only a direction to complete the enquiry and the order of suspending the authorisation of the petitioner gets set aside if the enquiry is not concluded within the time fixed. Since the authorisation of the petitioner was suspended pending the enquiry, to mitigate its rigour, time limit was fixed. As the enquiry was not concluded within the stipulated time, the petitioner was entitled to get his authorisation restored for the subject fair price shop. Though, by virtue of the interim order in Writ Petition No.19945 of 2025, the authorisation of the petitioner was restored by proceeding dated 20.08.2025 by referring only to the order in Writ Petition No.19945 of 2025, the effect would operate even with 6 BSB,J C.C.No.1534 of 2025 regard to the conditional order passed in Writ Petition No.2000 of 2025. As such, even if the petitioner fails in Writ Petition No.19945 of 2025, the same does not affect restoration of the authorisation which is also the consequence of the order in Writ Petition No.2000 of 2025. As the enquiry has not been concluded, the restored authorisation of the petitioner to the subject shop continues till a final decision is taken in the enquiry. Thus, this Court does not see any reason to punish the respondent for the alleged contempt nor is there any reason for the apprehension of the petitioner. 6. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this contempt case shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 19.12.2025 PBS/CMK 7 BSB,J C.C.No.1534 of 2025 131 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Contempt Case No: 1534 of 2025 Date: 19.12.2025 PBS/CMK