THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CONTEMPT CASE No. 259 of 2009. ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the interim order of this Court dt. 28.7.2008 in WPMP.No. 20751 of 2008 in W.P.No. 16013 of 2008. The petitioner sought a declaration that the action of the 3rd respondent in granting form 2-B license dt. 23.6.2008 to the 6th respondent in the writ petition, for running the Nandini Green Park Bar & Restaurant in a residential area is illegal being contrary to Rule 6 (v) of the A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling By Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2005. By the order dt. 28.7.2008, this Court found that initial grant of license and renewal of form 2-B license on 23.6.2008 in favour of the 6th respondent is contrary to the statutory rule which clearly and unambiguously mandates that a license in form 2-B shall be not granted unless a ‘no objection certificate’ is produced from the local authorities for sale of liquor. Since the license was granted in contravention of the mandatory requirement of the Statutory rules, this Court while characterising the conduct of the 2nd and 3rd respondents as violating the discipline of law and pursuing an independent policy for generating funds, in contravention of the clear mandate of the statutory rule, suspended the form 2-B license dt. 23.6.2008 granted in favour of the 6th respondent in the writ petition. This contempt case is filed by the writ petitioner alleging that the respondent herein had acted contumaciously by revoking the suspension of the license in favour of the 6th respondent, by his order dt. 11.2.2009. The order of the respondent reads as under: “In pursuance of the orders of the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued in the reference 4th cited substituted clause (v) of Rule 6 and amending sub rule (2) of Rule 9A of A.P. Excise (Grant of license of selling by bar and condition of license) Rules 2005 and subsequent receipt of proof of payment of Trade license for the current year from the applicant, the suspension imposed on M/s Sri Nandini Greenpark Bar & Restaurant, Proddatur w.e.f. 1.8.2008 is hereby revoked. The Station House Officer, Proddatur is hereby directed to permit the license to continue the business.” It is clear that the respondent, the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Proddatur has chosen to in effect vacate the order of the suspension of license, passed by this Court. This is clearly a contumacious conduct. The respondent is a fairly senior officer of the department and Sri.Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is not an illiterate. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit asserting that pursuant to the order of this Court dt. 28.7.2008 suspending the form 2-B license granted in favour of the 6th respondent in the writ petition, he passed a consequent order suspending the conduct of business of the 6th respondent with effect from 1.8.2008. It is further pleaded that Rule 6(v) of the Rules was amended by the State Government and the amended Rule does not require obtaining of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Municipality and requires production only of a ‘Trade License’ from the local authority for grant of a 2-B license. The 6th respondent in the writ petition approached the answering respondent seeking revocation of the suspension of the Bar & Restaurant business in view of the amended Rule and there being no requirement of NOC from the concerned Municipality. The 6th respondent in the writ petition produced proof of payment of trade license fee. The answering respondent therefore felt “sincerely” that the claim of the 6th respondent in the writ petition for revocation of suspension of the license was having merit in view of the amendment of the Rule. He accordingly issued the order dt. 11.2.2009 revoking the suspension of the bar license. The explanation submitted by the respondent is jejune and does not commend to this Court to be a fair and rational representation of the relevant events. This court suspended the form 2-B license (of the 6th respondent in the writ petition) by its order dt. 28.7.2008. The license of the 6th respondent therefore stood eclipsed from 28.7.2008 onwards. The respondent however passed an order dt. 11.2.2009 revoking suspension of the license of the 6th respondent even while the order of suspension passed by this Court is in force. The respondent herein who is the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise had absolutely no power, authority or jurisdiction to permit the business of the 6th respondent in the writ petition while the suspension of the license ordered by this Court is in force. If Rule 6 (v) of the Rules is amended, the respondent should have approached this Court, even if he was personally interested in the business of the 6th respondent in the writ petition, to seek modification or vacation of the suspension order passed by this Court on 28.7.2008. The personal interest evinced by the respondent herein in running of the bar and restaurant business by the 6th respondent in the writ petition does not accord with the neutrality and professional detachment expected by a State actor. The respondent is to have consciously and deliberately overreached the mandatory and non-derogable authority of this Court qua its order dt. 28.7.2008 and has passed the order dt. 11.2.2009, which in text and context amounts to overruling the order of this Court. The order of the respondent dt. 11.2.2009 states that the suspension imposed on M/s Sri Nandini Greenpark Restaurant & Bar, Proddatur with effect from 1.8.2008 is hereby revoked. This order clearly means that the respondent has revoked the order of suspension passed by this Court. Such conduct is subversive of the rule of law and undermines Constitutional governance. The respondent cannot plead ignorance of the language or misunderstanding of the purport of the order he had passed. On the aforesaid analysis, the respondent is seen to have committed contempt of the order of this Court dt. 28.7.2008. The respondent ritualistically tenders unconditional apology in para 7 of his counter. This Court is not persuaded that the order dt. 11.2.2009 was passed by the respondent either inadvertently or unmindful of the consequences or on a misapprehension of the legal position. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to accept the apology tendered by the respondent. Sri.Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Senior Counsel states that the respondent is due for retirement on superannuation in December 2011. That is not a circumstance relevant to the conclusion as to whether the respondent has committed contempt. In the circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to impose a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rs one thousand only) on the respondent for the contumacious conduct of issuing the order in Rc.No. B1/275/2008 dt. 11.2.2009 revoking the order of suspension of form 2-B license passed by this Court on 28.7.2008. In default of payment of the fine as ordered, the respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the State Government for recording the same in the Service Record of the respondent. The contempt case is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 11.12.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CONTEMPT CASE No. 259 of 2009. ORDER: Dt. 11.12.2010.