THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE Nos.628, 629 and 630 of 2009 Date:01.04.2011 Between: P.Yesaiah and others ..... Petitioners AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: None appeared Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: COMON ORDER: These three Contempt Cases raise more or less similar facts and, therefore, they are taken up together for disposal. The petitioners are fair price shop dealers for different villages in Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District. The averments contained in the affidavits filed in support of these Contempt Cases would show that petitioners’ authorizations were suspended by respondent No.1 on different dates i.e., in the first case on 22.05.2005, in the second case on 18.11.2006 and in the third case on 17.12.2004. The petitioners filed appeals against the said suspension orders. The said appeals were dismissed, against which they have filed revisions before the District Collector. As no orders on the stay applications were passed by the District Collector, they filed previous round of writ petitions. The petitioners pleaded that even though orders on the stay applications were not passed as directed by this Court, they were allowed to supply essential commodities to the cardholders for some period and as the supplies were discontinued thereafter, they have filed W.P.Nos.5868, 5892 and 5636 of 2009. This Court, in separate W.P.M.Ps. in the said writ petitions, granted interim direction to continue the petitioners as fair price shop dealers provided the authorizations held by them are neither suspended nor cancelled. In spite of the same, as the supplies were not restored, the petitioners filed the present contempt cases. Separate counter-affidavits and additional counter-affidavits had been filed by respondent No.2 in these contempt cases, wherein it is maintained that the petitioners cannot be allowed to function as fair price shop dealers as their authorizations were suspended on 22.05.2005, 18.11.2006 and 17.12.2004 respectively, which were subject matter of appeals/revisions. In my opinion, the contempt cases are wholly misconceived for the simple reason that the writ petitions in which interim orders were passed have emanated out of the appeals/revisions filed by the petitioners questioning the orders of suspension. Apart from the fact that the petitioners have themselves pleaded in their affidavits that such suspension orders were passed questioning which they have availed the remedies of appeals/revisions; it defies any rationality and logic for the petitioners to contend that no orders of suspension were passed. If such orders of suspension were not made, the question of the petitioners filing the appeals/revisions would not have arisen. Therefore, in my opinion, the stand taken by the petitioners, on the premises that their authorizations were not suspended, that the respondents have committed wilful violation of the orders of this Court by not supplying the essential commodities is wholly unsustainable. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in these Contempt Cases and they are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of these Contempt Cases, C.A.No.339 of 2009 in C.C.No.628 of 2009, C.A.No.340 of 2009 in C.C.No.629 of 2009 and C.A.No.341 of 2009 in C.C.No.630 of 2009 filed for interim orders are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st April, 2011 GHN