This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.28875 of 2014 alleging wilful disobedience of order dated in 10-10-2014.

The facts leading to the institution of this Contempt Case, briefly narrated, are as follows:

The petitioner is the permanent fair price shop dealer of shop No.54 of Janapadu village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District. He was one of the victims of indiscriminate suspension of fair price shop authorisations unleashed by respondent No.1 on jejune grounds. When the suspension orders dated 22-8-2014 were assailed by the affected dealers, including the petitioner, this Court by common order dated 10-10-2014 set aside the same as the suspensions were based on imputations which were not only generic but also ex facie trivial and frivolous. This Court has also observed that the separate orders of suspension passed against the four dealers replicate with each other in every syllable without any variation except to the extent that respondent No.1 has jumbled up the imputations from one place to the other by changing their serial numbers and has accordingly invalidated the orders of suspension of authorisations of the petitioners therein, including that of the petitioner herein and allowed the Writ Petitions.

The grievance, nay, the complaint of the petitioner in this Contempt Case is that having resumed the supplies to his shop in the month of November 2014 in pursuance of the order dated 10-10-2014 in W.P.No.28875 of 2014, the respondents have abruptly stopped the supplies from March 2015. The petitioner pleaded that on 6-4-2015, he has made a representation to respondent No.1 informing him that though he has been obtaining Demand Drafts (D.Ds.) and challans in time and distributing the commodities to the cardholders properly, respondent No.2 has not given him challan for the month of March 2015. The petitioner has accordingly requested respondent No.1 to allow him to obtain challan for the month of April 2015 as his authorisation is valid till March 2016. As the supplies were not resumed to the petitioner even for the month of April 2015, he has filed the present Contempt Case.

On 19-6-2015, the Contempt Case came up for admission. At the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (AP), the case was adjourned to 26-6-2016 for filing counter-affidavit. Counter-affidavit, sworn to on 23-6-2015, was accordingly filed by respondent No.2 on 24-6-2015. Upon perusal of the contents of the counter-affidavit, this Court felt that the same are incredulous and it has accordingly admitted the Contempt Case on 26-6-2015. On 23-7-2015, respondent No.1 has also filed a counter-affidavit. Thereafter, both the respondents have appeared before this Court on 24-7-2015. On the same day, the case was heard and orders were reserved.

In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, he has inter alia stated that the petitioner did not remit Demand Draft till 7-3-2015 though allotment was made in his favour for the month of March 2015; that he has issued notice vide Rc.No.1/2015/A, dated 7-3-2015 requesting the petitioner to remit Demand Draft, but he refused to receive the same; that he has issued another notice dated 11-3-2015 again requesting him to remit Demand Draft on 11-3-2015 which was the last date for such remittance; that as the petitioner refused to receive the said notice also, the same was affixed on the petitioner’s residence; and that his subsequent enquiries revealed that the petitioner is staying away from the village from April 2015 and his whereabouts are not known. While asserting that he has not violated the order of this Court, respondent No.2 offered unconditional apology in form, but a conditional one in substance, stating that if this ‘Court comes to the conclusion that there is any violation, he is offering unconditional apology’.

The counter-affidavit of respondent No.1 is in tune with that of respondent No.2. He has also blamed the petitioner for their non-supply of com