APHC010565292024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Friday, the twenty eighth day of November two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Contempt Case No.4607 of 2024 Between: P. Malikarjuna, S/o Ramaiah, Annamayya District. ...Petitioner and A.Srinivas, R.D.O., Rayachoti, Annamayya District. ...Contemnor Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Papudippu Sashidar Reddy Counsel for the contemnor: 1. Venkata Sai Krishna Ponnuru The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J C.C.No.4607 of 2024 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondnet for wilful and deliberate violation of the order, dated 18.11.2024, in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.26607 of 2024 passed by this Court. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: a. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1147001, Suddalavandlapalle village, Sambepalli Mandal, Annamayya District and has been distributing ration to the cardholders. While so, the respondent No.3, Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoti, suspended the authorization of the petitioner pending enquiry on various allegations, vide procedings in Ref.No.C/709/2024, dated 14.11.2024. The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.26607 of 2024. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 to continue him as fair price shop dealer by suspending the proceedings issued by the respondent No.3 pending disposal of the writ petition. b. This Court directed to continue the petitioner as fair price shop dealer, vide order, dated 18.11.2024, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.26607 of 2024. The operative portion of the order, dated 18.11.2024, reads as follows: “Basing on the above condition, though in the order itself it is mentioned that the Tahsildar, Sambepalli Mandal, reported that the petitioner had resigned from the post of Community Facilitator, Community Activist & Animator on 10.10.2024, the dealership was suspended by stating that the dealer had not submitted an explanation for the showcause notice, dated 12.11.2024. 3 BSB, J C.C.No.4607 of 2024 That apart, the sequence of events narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that a prima facie case is in support of the petitioner. It needs to be examined whether the post held by the petiitoner would disqualify him from holding the dealership of the fair price shop and whether he is still disqualified to be a dealer in spite of resigning from the said post long prior to the passing of the impugned order. Therefore, as final hearing of the disposal takes some more time, meanwhile, if the impugned order is given efft, the petitioenr would suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, interim order, as prayed for, is granted. For counter in the writ petition, post on 09.12.2024.” c. The present contempt case was filed complaining disobedience of the above order. 3. The respondent-contemnor filed a counter affidavit stating that the order of the this Court was complied by revoking the suspension of the dealership of the petitioner, vide F.P.Shop No.1147001 of Sambepalli Mandal. The stock was also lifted and handed over to the dealer, Sri P.Mallikarjuna, vide reference C/709/2024, dt.19.12.2024. Hence, it is prayed to close the contempt case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the copy of the order secured from the website of this High Court has been served on the contemnor on 22.01.2024 itself, along with a representation, the order had not been complied deliberately insisting to submit a certified copy, and therefore, he stated that the contemnor is liable for punishment. He further submitted that the certified copy of the 4 BSB, J C.C.No.4607 of 2024 order of this Court was obtained on 29.11.2024 and was served on 04.12.2024. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent can act only on a certified copy and therefore, there is no wrong on his part to seek a certified copy of the order to act upon it. He further submitted that the certified copy of the order of this Court had been received on 11.12.2024 only and shortly thereafter, the dealership of the peitioner had been restored on 19.12.2024 and thus, there is no deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court. He further stated that the petitioner had been supplying the commodities since January, 2025 and therefore, requested to dismiss the petition. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contemnor is liable to be punished for non-compliance of the direction within the stipulated time, but if the Court is inclined, a lenient punishment may be awarded, but punishment is necessry to uphold rule of law. 7. Since the relief claimed has penal consequences, the intention of the contemnor for violation of the order is required to be strictly established. As can be seen from the facts stated in this case, there is no deliberate and intentional disobedience of the order of this Court so as to treat the inaction of the respondent as contempt. As such, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 BSB, J C.C.No.4607 of 2024 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 28.11.2025 RAR