This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of Order, dated 26-12-2014, in WP.No.39906 of 2014, by the respondents.

The facts leading to filing of this Contempt Case are briefly stated hereunder:

The petitioner is the authorized dealer of the fair price shop of Sunkireddipally Village, Madakasira Mandal, Adilabad District. As the supply of essential commodities was stopped to her shop, she has filed WP.No.27332 of 2014. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, on 16-09-2014, with the observation that so long as the petitioner’s authorization was valid and subsisting, the respondents are bound to supply essential commodities to her fair price shop. Subsequently, one M.Bhaskar Reddy, claiming to be a card holder attached to the petitioner’s fair price shop, filed W.P.No.33679 of 2014, with the allegation that though the petitioner’s fair price shop authorization was suspended, on the strength of the direction issued by this Court in WP.No.27332 of 2014, the respondents are seeking to supply essential commodities to her shop. He has averred that, on 13-08-2014, respondent No.2 has suspended the petitioner’s authorization and that therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be continued as the fair price shop dealer. This Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition by Order, dated 11-11-2014, with the observation that if the petitioner’s authorization was suspended on 13-08-2014, unless the said order was subsequently stayed by this Court or any other forum, she is not entitled to be continued as the fair price shop dealer. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has issued the proceeding in Rc.No.264/2014 (B), dated 15-12-2014, whereby he has removed the petitioner from the fair price shop dealership and appointed the fair price shop dealer of another village as the incharge dealer. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP.No.39906 of 2014.

In her affidavit, filed in support of the said Writ Petition, the petitioner has alleged that the purported order, dated 13.08.2014, suspending her authorization was indeed passed after 16.09.2014 and that the same was antedated to show as if it was passed much prior to the filing of WP.No.27332 of 2014, with a view to overreach Order, dated 16-09-2014, passed in the said Writ Petition. In support of the said plea, the petitioner’s Counsel has relied upon the endorsement in RC.No. /2014 (B), dated NIL, which referred to the order passed by this Court in WP.No.27332 of 2014, as if the said order was passed on 16-08-2014 and received by respondent No.2 herein on 28.08.2014. After hearing both sides, this Court has allowed the said Writ Petition by Order, dated 26-12-2014, wherein a specific finding was rendered that the endorsement referred to above contained incorrect and inaccurate facts and that respondent No.2 was not acting in a fair and transparent manner. This Court further held that even assuming that respondent No.2 has passed the endorsement, suspending the petitioner’s authorization on 13-08-2014, it has died its natural death with the expiry of 90 days, for which the said order of suspension was passed, and that therefore, the proceeding, dated 15-12-2014, removing the petitioner purporting to rely upon the order in WP.No.33679 of 2014 is preposterous, to say the least. This Court further observed that the fact that the petitioner’s authorization was suspended only for a period of 90 days was not brought to its notice in WP.No.33679 of 2014 and that respondent No.2 has evidently taken shelter under the order passed in the said Writ Petition to ensure displacement of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court found the conduct of respondent No.2 herein as wholly mala fide. It was further held in the said order that respondent No.2 has no authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as it is respondent No.1, who is the appointing authority vested with the disciplinary power. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of Order, dated 26-12-2