THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.296 of 2004 12.11.2009 Between: Vemu Vasantha Rao, S/o.Thirupathaiah … Petitioner and The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P.Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.296 of 2004 ORDER: Petitioner, who is secretary of fifth respondent society, was suspended. He preferred appeal before the fourth respondent. The suspension order was set aside and petitioner was admitted to duty on 10.8.2000. He then made a representation to fourth respondent for payment of wages and salary for the period of suspension. Therefore he filed W.P.No.4840 of 2003. The same was disposed of by this Court on 21.3.2003 directing fourth respondent herein to pass appropriate orders on the representation of petitioner dated 20.1.2003. Alleging that the same has not been obeyed, present contempt case is filed. Fourth respondent filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating as follows. In reply to para Nos.5 and 6, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the fourth and fifth respondents have not turned up to implement order of the High Court is not correct. It is further submitted that this respondent has already given direction dated 07.5.2003 to fifth respondent to take action on the orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated 21.3.2003 under the provisions of the Act and Rules. The fifth respondent has submitted the financial position of the society in his letter dated 30.5.2003 stating that the financial position of the society and the society has earned interest on margin of Rs.59,499/- expenditure of salaries Rs.48,284 + Contingent Rs.11,025/- during the year 2002-2003 which is again paid to the 3 staff members including the petitioner towards minimum wages for the period 2002-2003. The fifth respondent has submitted that there are no collection of loans from the members and therefore the society is not in a position to meet the establishment charges and salaries of the petitioner for the remaining suspension period as per the provisions under section 116-C(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. In this connection, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner is the Chief Executive of the society who is entrusted with the job of collection of loans from members by issue of receipts and all day today administration including the maintenance of all records of the society. He is persons responsible to collect and to remit the same in the S.B. Account opened for the purpose (Administration and Contingent fund) to meet the establishment and contingent charges. Knowing all these facts that the society has no funds in the administration and contingent fund account to meet the establishment charges, the petitioner had filed this contempt case with an ulterior motive to meet his personal ends by violation of the provisions under Section 116-C(1) and Rule 36-B of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. This respondent is having most regard to implement the Hon’ble High Court orders dated 21.3.2003, if the financial position of the society permits to pay the salaries of the petitioner for the remaining period within the limits prescribed under section 116-(C)(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Fifth respondent also filed counter stating that in obedience to the orders of this Court, society submitted a report to fourth respondent regarding financial position and that petitioner who is in-charge of day- to-day administration failed to collect the amounts and remit the same to S.B. Account of society. It is also stated that financial position of society permits payment of salaries and the same would be paid to him. Though counters are filed in 2004, petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit denying the averments in the counters. Therefore, it is not a case where respondents 4 and 5 are guilty of inaction. Indeed necessary steps were taken to implement the orders and as seen from the counter affidavit of fourth respondent, petitioner was again suspended on 16.9.2003, assailing which, he filed W.P.No.3631 of 2004. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the case of petitioner. The contempt case, for the above reasons, is dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) November 12, 2009 YS