THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.465 OF 2011 AND REVIEW WPMP (SR) NO.86549 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.25579 OF 2006 DATED AUGUST, 2011 BETWEEN Smt.P.Ananthamma …Petitioner And Sri P.Subba Rao, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, Krishna District. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.465 OF 2011 AND REVIEW WPMP (SR) NO.86549 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.25579 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER: By proceedings dated 24.10.2005, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, cancelled the authorization of P.Ananthamma, the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Kudapa Village, Reddigudem Mandal, Krishna District. The same was confirmed in appeal by the Joint Collector, Krishna, under order dated 12.06.2006 and in revision, by the District Collector, Krishna, under order dated 26.09.2006. Challenging the aforestated proceedings, the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Kudapa Village, P.Ananthamma, filed Writ Petition No.25579 of 2006 before this Court. By interim order dated 08.12.2006, this Court directed the respondents not to make any permanent arrangements against the Fair Price Shop in question during the pendency of the writ petition. In the counter filed in support of WVMP No.1225 of 2007 to vacate the aforestated order, the respondent authorities stated that after the dismissal of the petitioner’s revision by the District Collector, Krishna, on 26.09.2006, one Gogineni Kishore Kumar had been appointed as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Kudapa Village under proceedings dated 02.12.2006 and the said individual was operating as the dealer of the Fair Price Shop since the said date. Unfortunately, this aspect was not brought to the notice of this Court when the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 04.08.2010. The observations in the order to the effect that the authorization was cancelled four years prior thereto and in view of the interim order passed by this Court, only temporary arrangements were made and no permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer was appointed so far as the Fair Price Shop in question is concerned, clearly demonstrates that this Court was unmindful of the fact that a permanent arrangement had, in fact, been made even prior to the passing of the interim order dated 08.12.2006. However, by the final order dated 04.08.2010, this Court being unaware of the actualities, directed the respondent authorities to restore the authorization of P.Ananthamma forthwith and that such authorization should be treated as a fresh authorization. Alleging disobedience to this order, P.Ananthamma filed Contempt Case No.465 of 2011 stating that no action had been taken by the respondent authorities to implement the order dated 04.08.2010 and that her authorization had not yet been restored. In his counter filed in the contempt case, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, stated that upon the cancellation of the Fair Price Shop authorization of P.Ananthamma under proceedings dated 24.10.2005 of his office, the Fair Price Shop vacancy was notified on 08.12.2005. After the dismissal of Ananthamma’s revision by the District Collector, Krishna, he stated that Gogineni Kishore Kumar had been appointed as the dealer of the subject Fair Price Shop under proceedings dated 02.12.2006 and that he was running the Fair Price Shop till date. He stated that the said Fair Price Shop had been bifurcated and a second Fair Price Shop was created in Kudapa Village. Under notification dated 22.12.2008 the selection process for appointment of a dealer to the second Fair Price Shop was initiated and one V.Vijaya Lakshmi is said to have been selected and appointed under proceedings dated 18.02.2009. He further stated that her appointment was challenged by an unsuccessful candidate before the Joint Collector, Krishna, who granted stay of her appointment under orders dated 25.03.2009. Calling the same in question, V.Vijaya Lakshmi filed Writ Petition No.9369 of 2009 before this Court and by interim order dated 13.04.2010, the order passed by the Joint Collector, Krishna, was suspended. He stated that V.Vijaya Lakshmi was also continuing as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of the second shop in Kudapa Village. Having realized belatedly, after the filing of the contempt case, that the order dated 04.08.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25579 of 2006 was incapable of implementation in the existing facts and circumstances, the respondent authorities filed WPMP (SR) No.86549 of 2011 in the writ petition to review the order dated 04.08.2010. The grounds set out in the review petition indicate that the review is sought owing to the facts as obtaining presently, which render it impossible for the authorities to restore the petitioner’s authorization as the Fair Price Shop Dealer at Kudapa Village. It is stated that these facts could not be brought to the notice of this Court at the time of passing of the order dated 04.08.2010 owing to a communication gap between the offices of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, and the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies of this Court. Pertinent to note, neither Gogineni Kishore Kumar nor V.Vijaya Lakshmi are parties to these proceedings. Further, their appointments are not under challenge by Ananthamma, the displaced Fair Price Shop Dealer. It is unfortunate that crucial factual aspects were not apprised to this Court at the time of the disposal of the writ petition. Surprisingly, Ananthamma being a resident of the Village also did not choose to take any steps when a permanent arrangement was made for the Fair Price Shop and when it was bifurcated thereafter. So much so, she did not even bring it to the notice of this Court at the time of disposal of her writ petition. Similar lassitude was displayed by the respondent authorities who, but for making a reference in their counter to the appointment of Gogineni Kishore Kumar, did not dispel the incorrect factual impression carried by this Court that no permanent arrangement had been made for the subject Fair Price Shop. Thus, the imbroglio which is now presented to this Court is, to some extent, of the parties own making. However, it is incapable of simple resolution as third party interests have intervened and it is no longer possible to restore the authorization of the petitioner in W.P.No.25579 of 2006 as directed by this Court. It is however significant to note that the respondent authorities did not choose to seek review of the order dated 04.08.2010 on merits, that is, as to the validity of the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization. To that extent, the order has become final. In consequence, the setting aside of the cancellation of the petitioner’s authorization as the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Kudapa Village continues to hold good. She cannot however be accommodated in the said village owing to the fact that permanent dealers have been appointed for the two new shops which came into existence upon the bifurcation of the existing Fair Price Shop. Faced with this conundrum, this Court has no option but to devise a solution to suit the peculiar and unique circumstances which have arisen in the present case. The respondent authorities are therefore directed to appoint the petitioner in W.P.No.25579 of 2006, P.Ananthamma, as a Fair Price Shop Dealer for any other Fair Price Shop in the vicinity of Kudapa Village as and when a vacancy arises, without resorting to the regular appointment procedure. This singular and exceptional departure from the prescribed procedure for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers is warranted by the circumstances prevailing in this case and shall not constitute a precedent for future cases. As directed by this Court in its order dated 04.08.2010, such appointment shall be treated as a fresh appointment. The order dated 04.08.2010 passed in the writ petition shall stand modified to this extent. As the said order was incapable of implementation, wilful disobedience thereto does not arise. The Review WPMP is disposed of accordingly and the Contempt Case is closed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______ AUGUST, 2011 VGSR