IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.79 of 2008 Between: Sri Metta Lakshmana Murthy, S/o. Late Rama Chandra Rao, Ex.Secretary, PACS, Ndagam, Narsannapeta Village, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. … Petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Murthy, The President, Primary Agricultrue Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Narasannapeta, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District (formerly PACS, Nadagam, rep by its part time Special Officer) and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.79 of 2008 ORDER: No representation from either side. This contempt case is filed seeking to punish the 1st respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act for deliberate violation of the order dated 18.09.2007 passed in W.P.M.P. No.27073 of 2005 in W.P. No.21136 of 2005 by this Court. The petitioner was the Secretary in the 1st respondent’s Society was appointed in the year of 1978 and served in different Agricultural Co.operative Societies Limited and was transferred to Nadagam, Narsannapeta Village Srikakulam District on 02.05.1998. While so, the 1st respondent’s Society placed him under suspension vide Proceedings No.1/2002-2003, dated 22.08.2003 on certain allegations. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P. No.21057 of 2003 questioning the order of suspension. The said writ petition was disposed of on 20.11.2003 directing the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner, as admissible, regularly every month, during the pendency of the enquiry and further directed to complete the enquiry within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of the order. But the respondents failed to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P. No.21136 of 2005 seeking for reinstatement of the petitioner into service by suspending the Proceedings No.1/2002-2003 dated 22.08.2003 where under the petitioner was placed under suspension. Along with the said writ petition, the petitioner also filed W.P.M.P. No.27073 of 2005 seeking direction to the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance. This Court by order dated 18.09.2007 directed the 1st respondent to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner, within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Since, the said direction has not been complied with by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed the present contempt case stating that non compliance of the order passed by this Court would amounts to deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court. On behalf of the respondents, while denying the allegations made against the 1st respondent, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the subsistence allowance of the petitioner could not be paid because of the paucity of the funds with the Soceity. Further, it is averred that as per the policy of the Government, the Society disbursed the loan amounts to the farmers but the farmers stopped to pay the repayments due to the Government’s promise that it would be waived. Therefore, the 1st respondent’s Society was in dearth of funds and could not be paid the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner. Further, it is also averred that he is ready to pay the amounts due to the petitioner, if a reasonable time is granted for procuring funds for the Society. This counter affidavit is filed in the month of April, 2008. From a perusal of the docket proceedings, it is noticed that this contempt case is admitted on 18.03.2008 and on 10.11.2008 this Court observed that Sri Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent handed over a cheque bearing No.133514, dated 05.10.2008 drawn on the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, for a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- (Rupees three lakhs seventy thousand only) to the counsel for the petitioner to be payable to the petitioner. On 18.09.2007, this Court passed the following order in W.P.M.P. No.27073 of 2005 in W.P. No.21136 of 2005, which reads as under: “It appears, earlier, the petitioner filed writ petition No.21057 of 2003 and the same was disposed of on 20.11.2003 directing the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance as admissible regularly each month during the pendency of the enquiry, and further, the respondents were directed to complete the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It appears, thereafter, neither the petitioner was paid the subsistence allowance nor the enquiry was completed within four months as directed by this Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even as on today, the enquiry is not completed, whereas the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, states that the enquiry was completed on 15.04.2006 and report to that effect was submitted to the disciplinary authority. Be that as it may it appears, the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded as of now and the petitioner is not apid the subsistence allowance as per his eligibility, in spite of there being direction by this Court earlier. In these circumstances, the first respondent is directed to pay the petitioner all the arrears of subsistence allowance from the date of suspension till date within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any failure to comply with this order will be viewed seriously.” The facts and circumstances that were explained in the counter with regard to paucity of the funds is not denied by the petitioner and the 1st respondent was present before this Court on several occasions, from time to time, and ultimately an amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- was paid to the counsel for the petitioner by way of cheque, so as to enabling the counsel for the petitioner to handover the same to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately or intentionally violated the order passed by this Court and therefore, the present contempt case is liable to be closed. Accordingly, this contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it is needless to observe that if any further amount is due to the petitioner, in respect of the subsistence allowance, it is open for him to make a representation to the respondents, in which case, the same shall be considered by the respondents, in accordance with law. __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 17.08.2011 LSK