Point of Law: Complaints of petitioner with respect to illegalities and unauthorized benefits being drawn by certain of individuals at last turned out to be true, which had necessitated official respondents to take action.

ORDER :

1. This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 27435 of 2019.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-contemnor.

3. It is a case where the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 27435 of 2019 complaining inaction on the part of respondent authorities in dealing with his complaints made vide representations dated 29.10.2018, 09.08.2019 and 19.09.2019 with respect to illegalities and unauthorized disbursal of monies in favour of various individuals who were arrayed as party respondents 8 to 28 in the writ petition.

4. Taking into consideration the nature of complaints made by petitioner (copies of which were enclosed along with the writ affidavit) and considering that these aspects are to be dealt firmly and expeditiously, more particularly, when ineligible persons are allegedly being given benefits thereby depriving eligible persons under various schemes, this Court directed the respondent No. 3-District Collector, Khammam (the respondent-contemnor herein) to consider the complaints and take necessary action in accordance with law. The order was made on 11.12.2019. This Court did not specify any timeframe within which the representations have to be considered for taking necessary action. However, under Writ Proceedings Rules of this Court, when no specific timeframe for taking necessary action is stipulated in an order, two months’ time is the default timeframe within which the necessary action has to be taken. That is the rule position.

5. In the case on hand, the contempt case was filed on 08.09.2020, and the papers were served on the learned Government Pleader’s Office even at the time of filing the contempt case as per the practice. However, the contempt case itself came up for consideration before this Court on 11.10.2020. Notice was issued directing the respondent to file counter with a further direction to list the matter on 19.01.2021.

6. A counter affidavit was filed on 07.01.2021 by the respondent denying violation of the order dated 11.12.2019. As a matter of fact, the record discloses receipt of representations dated 29.10.2018, 09.08.2019 and 19.09.2019.

7. It is averred in the counter affidavit that with respect to the representation dated 29.10.2018 the respondent has referred the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and others for necessary action. It is to be noticed that conveniently the date of referring to the RDO seeking information has not been stated.

8. Likewise, with respect to the representation dated 09.08.2019, the respondent states that there are two representations with same date i.e. one with respect to continuing of employees in BC Welfare Department in spite of two years of service, and the same was referred to the District Welfare Officer, Khammam, on 28.08.2019; and the other is a follow up representation of petitioner’s earlier representation dated 29.10.2018 alleging inaction of the banking staff of Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank (APGVB), Penubally, for misusing Public money, and the said representation was also referred to RDO, Kalluru on 28.08.2019.

9. Similarly, it is also stated in the counter that the representation dated 19.09.2019 was also referred to the Lead District Manager, Khammam. However, the respondent has conspicuously omitted mentioning the date of reference to the Lead District Manager.

10. A perusal of the material documents filed along with the counter affidavit would disclose that in the letter addressed by the Lead District Manager, Khammam, vide R.C. No. F31/2019-20 dated 18.12.2020, there is a reference to the Letter of Collector, Khammam, LR. R.C. No. F2/149/2020 dated 15.10.2020. In other words, the District Collector’s contention that the same was referred to the Lead District Manager was, in fact, only on 15.10.2020.

11. The details with respect to the action taken subsequently were mentioned from paragraph 5 onwards in th