1 3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.305/2008. Shrawan Ram @ Sharwan Kumar Vs. Pravindra Singh Parmar & Ors. Date of Order :: 19th January 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sukesh Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr. Anand Purohit, Additional Advocate General. ..... BY THE COURT: . Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find a clear case of willful disobedience against the non-petitioners so far the order dated 29.05.2008 as passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1601/2007 is concerned. By the said order dated 29.05.2008, this Court quashed the allotment of fair price shop at village Dangawas as made in favour of the respondent No.4 Deva Ram under the allotment order dated 25.04.2006; and remitted the matter to the Collector for reconsidering the candidature of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent No.4 under the priority meant for the educated unemployed person. The requisite consideration was to be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order and till then, the respondent No.4 was 2 permitted to continue to operate the fair price shop in question. It appears that pursuant to the writ so issued by this Court, the Collector (Supplies), Nagaur considered the matter but passed the order only on 25.07.2008 holding the petitioner entitled to be allotted the shop and the learned Collector, of course, proceeded to make an observation that the order dated 25.04.2006 stood quashed. Such observations concerning the allotment order dated 25.04.2006 were, obviously, superfluous for the allotment in favour of the private respondent Deva Ram had already been cancelled by this Court. It appears further that the said private respondent Deva Ram challenged the order dated 25.07.2008 as passed by the Collector before the Additional Food Commissioner, who proceeded to make an interim order dated 30.07.2008. The interim order so passed by the Additional Food Commissioner on 30.07.2008 was questioned by the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6360/2008 and, by an order dated 04.09.2008, this Court stayed the operation and effect of the said order dated 30.07.2008 that was found to be not in conformity with the state of record and rather standing contrary to the writ issued by this Court on 29.05.2008. 3 This contempt petition was filed on 29.09.2008 and with reference to the aforesaid facts, it has, inter alia, been stated that even after passing of the order dated 04.09.2008 by this Court, the District Supplies Officer made supplies of kerosene to Deva Ram on 16.09.2008. However, this contempt petition has specifically been moved stating non-compliance of the order dated 29.05.2008 and while annexing the copy thereof as Annexure-1 and it is only during the course of arguments that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner attempted to refer to the order dated 04.09.2008 as made in CWP No. 6360/2008 and sought to argue that the non-applicants had been guilty of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 04.09.2008 and were acting contrary to the order so passed. The submissions as made in relation to the order dated 04.09.2008 remain irrelevant so far the frame of this contempt petition is concerned that has essentially been moved while stating non-compliance of the order dated 29.05.2008 and with the prayer that the non-petitioners may be punished for willful disobedience of the order passed on 29.05.2008. As noticed above, the requirements of the order dated 29.05.2008 have already been satisfied and the concerned 4 Collector had passed the requisite order on 25.07.2008, albeit with a short delay. It is noticed that the Collector was required to pass the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. It has been stated that the copy of the order was given to the Collector on 02.06.2008. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Collector was required to decide the mater by 01.07.2008 and thus there was non-compliance. A mere short delay in adhering to the time schedule for taking a particular decision cannot ipso facto be treated to be a willful disobedience unless it is shown that the delay was intentional or was such inordinate that it should not have occurred in ordinary circumstances. There appears no reason to proceed against the non-petitioner Collector for passing the order with a short delay of 24 days and in that regard, the unconditional apology as stated on behalf of the non-petitioners deserves to be accepted. So far the grievance in relation to the order dated 04.09.2008 or anything done thereafter by the parties is concerned, in the first place, the said order has not been filed in this contempt petition; and secondly, merely on the allegation as made in the contempt petition about the District Supplies Officer having made certain supplies to the private 5 respondent (Deva Ram) on 16.09.2008, it cannot be treated to be making out a case for taking proceedings in contempt, unless other necessary facts were stated. In this matter on one hand, it has been pointed out on behalf of the non-petitioners that the licence has been issued in favour of the petitioner and on the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Additional Food Commissioner, Rajasthan proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Collector while allowing the appeal on 17.11.2008 and the petitioner has challenged the said order in CWP No. 9632/2008 wherein this Court has passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner. In any case, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the petitioner has been appointed as fair price shopkeeper for the shop in question and is continuing as such at present. In the aforesaid view of the matter, no case for proceeding against the non-petitioners in this contempt petition is made out. The contempt petition stands rejected and the notices are discharged. However, it shall not otherwise prejudice the petitioner from taking resort to or continuing with appropriate remedies in accordance with law. 6 (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/