HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR CONTEMPTCASE N0.36/2006 PETITIONERS 't..j RESPONDENTS 1 Bastar Zila Thok Upbhokta Bhandar, Maryadit (WhoJesaie Consumer Cooperative Society), Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) registered under the CG. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, vide Registration No.DR/BTR/674, dated 21.101976, through-lts Assistant Manager, P.N.Mishra, aged about 40 years, son of Shri R.A.Mishra, Office at Nayapara, Jagdaipur, District Bastar (C.G.) 2 Prathmik Adarsh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, A Samiti registered under the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 vide registration No.DR/BTR/458, dated 18.02.2002, through -Its Manager, Ramesh Bajpai, aged about 49 years,son ofShri R.P.Bajp3J,offJce at Danteshwari Ward (Baiia Bazar),Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Versus G.S.IVii§hra,Collector, District Bastar, Jagdatpur (C.G.) V. Lakara, Food Controlier, Bastar District, Jagdalpur (C.G.) CONTEEVEPTCASE UNDERARTICLE 215 OFTHE CQNSTITUTIONOFINDIA A@Beara?lce: Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate on behaif of Shri Avinash K. Mishra, counsel forthe petitioners. Shri B.D. Guru, Counsei for respondents. Contempt Case No.36/2006 ' (.' ORALORDER (24.11.2009) SUNIL KUMARSiNHA.J. Heard. The petitioners, who are aiso petitioners in W.P.No.2762/2006, have fiied this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondents for alleged wiiifui violation of the interim order dated 20.06.2006, passed In W.P.No.276Z/2006. White issuing the rule in the said writ petition on 20.06.2006, this Court passed the foliowing interim order on M.W.P.No.2100/2006: "M.VV.P. No.2100/2006 for arant of interim reiief: if the petitioners-Society are entitiedto run the fair price shop under the existing agreement with the Government and ifthe term of that agreement is not yet expired, they shali be permitted to run the shop in terms of that agreement. M.W.P. No.2100/2006 and I.A. No.5480/2006 for urgent hearing stand disposedof. C.c. as per rules." Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were running 38 fair prtee shops and even after passing ofthe order dated 20.06.2006, their shops were canceiiedand they were aliowed to run only 3 fair price shops, which amounts to wiliful vjolation of the order dated 20.06.2006 passed by this Court. A repiy has been filed on behalf of the respondents. it has been contended in the repiy that on 21.03.2006ian amendment was published in the Gazette in regard to amendment in the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 amending sub- clause (2) of Clause 9. According to the amendment, ordinarilyone fair price shop was to be aliotted to any agency for its area of operation to ensure reguiar supply of the essential commodities to Contempt Case No.36/2006 fc' -,;^. ration card holders. It was atso providedthat the authorized officer may allot more than one fair price shop to any agency by assigning any specific reason, but in any case, the number will not exceed 3 fair price shops. On 01.04.2006, some order was passed by the Secretary, Food and Civil Suppiies Department in this regard. Thereafter, on 04.04.2006, the then Collector issued the showcause notice in regard to amendment in C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004, asking the petitioners to clarify the names of the 3 shops, for which they were interested to run, out of 38 fair price shops they were running. On 10.04.2006, reply by the petitioners was filed and on the same date, 35 fair price shops run by the petitioners out of 38 fair price shops were cancelled by the then Collector in view of the amendment in the C.G. Public Distribution System (Controi) Order, 2004. On 12.04.2006, the petitioners had given the names of3 shops, whichthey were interested to run. After completion of the above procedure, on 14.04.2006, 35 shops were allotted to other persons. Thereafter, on 11.05.2006, W.P.No.2762/2006 was fiied and on 20.06.2006, the aforesaid interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for_the respondents submits that the order passed by this Court was received on 26.06.2006 and in this manner, on the date of passing ofthe order, the petitioners - Society were not entitled to run tbe fair price sRops. He submits that forthe above reasons, thereappears to be no contempt committed by the respondents, therefore, the contempt proceedings may not be drawn. i have gone through the contempt petition as also the documents and the reply filed on affidavit regarding the events, which have taken place prior to filing of the writ petition. In light of the amendment brought in the C.G. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2004 andalso in light of the contents of the interim order passed by this Court, itdoes not appear that the respondents have committed any default against the order '•^^am^i,^'^ 4 ContemDtCase No.36/2006 ^v passed by this Court on 20.06.2006 or their action in allotment of alteged fair price shops to the other persons would amount to contempt in any manner. The petition has no merifs. The same is liable to be dismissed ^na'is accordingly dismissed. | 1 , . SdA ' I ! Sunil KumarSinha j Judge |