To allow the Contempt Appeal by setting aside the order dated 23.10.2021 passed in CC No. 2289/2017 and to pass.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To suspend the operation of order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in CC. No. 2289/2017 in WP. No. 21026 of 2017 pending disposal of he Contempt appeal and to pass.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Subhendu Samanta)

1. The instant contempt appeal has been preferred against the order, dt.23.10.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.C. No.2289 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge sentenced the appellant herein to undergo simple imprisonment for four (04) weeks and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) payable within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Failing which to undergo further two (02) weeks simple imprisonment.

2. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the writ petition.

3. The brief facts of the matter are that the petitioner undertook civil works sanctioned under MGNREGS in respect of Kankanalapalli Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur District. He approached this Court by way of writ petition being W.P. No.21026 of 2017 on the ground that a sum of Rs.8,86,940/- had been withheld from the amounts payable to him by the respondents. This Court, vide order dated 30.06.2017, in W.P.No.21026 of 2017, after recording the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel that the said amount had been withheld on account of pending social audit and the same amount would be refunded upon completion of the social audit, had disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to settle the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

4. By filing the contempt case, the petitioner again approached this Court on the ground that the petitioner was entitled for refund of Rs.8,86,940/- out of an amount of Rs.9,00,202/- which was released by the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division-I, Guntur, by way of a cheque bearing No.262285, dt.31.03.2017, which was deposited into the bank account of the Gram Panchayat, but was not being released to him by respondents 5 and 6.

5. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that respondents 5 and 6 are deliberately withholding the money for more than six months with a mala fide intention and for extraneous reasons, as the petitioner was not willing to accede to the demand of respondents 5 and 6, who are asking for share of 25% of the said amount. The 5th respondent is the Sarpach and the 6th respondent is the Panchayat Secretary of Kankanalapalli Village. Both the respondents contested the contempt case by filing separate counter affidavits.

6. The 6th respondent contended in his counter-affidavit that the petitioner was never entrusted the contract work under MGNREGS and the contractors cannot be engaged to take up any of the works carried out under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005.

7. On the other hand, the 5th respondent, though initially filed counter adopting the counter of the 6th respondent, has admitted that though the Panchayat Raj Department had estimated the value of the work to be done within the Gram Panchayat, under 7 packages, at Rs.2,21,50,000/-, but the petitioner submitted bid only for Rs.98,77,206/-. It is further contended in the additional counter affidavit of the 5th respondent that the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.1,68,66,558/-. It is further contended that no amount was due to the petitioner. As such, non-payment of the amounts claimed by the petitioner would not amount to a violation of the order of the Court.

8. During hearing of the matter before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the pet