HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1555 of 2010 in W.P. No.24138 of 2010 Date: January 18, 2011 Between: B. Swami Reddy … Petitioner And 1. The A.P. State Agro Industries Department Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad and 4 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1555 of 2010 in W.P. No.24138 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case has been lodged complaining that orders that were passed by this Court on 06th October 2010 in W.P. No.24138 of 2010 have not been complied with and on the other hand they have been flouted with impunity. 2. It is appropriate right at this stage to note the order passed by this Court on 06th October 2010, which reads as under: “Pending further orders, the respondents are directed to continue the supply of seeds to the writ petitioner in pursuance to his licence No.1925, which is valid up to 21.06.2013.” 3. In W.P. No.24138 of 2010 the A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited has been impleaded as first respondent, while its Regional Manager, Anantapur and Marketing Executive at Kurnool were impleaded as respondents 2 and 3. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool has been impleaded as 4th respondent and J. Siva Prasad has been impleaded as 5th respondent. It is therefore manifestly clear that respondents 1 to 4 were directed to continue the supply of the seeds to the petitioner in pursuance of his licence bearing No.1925. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondents have never complied with this order nor did they make available or supply the seeds. 4. However, Sri B. Timothy, learned standing counsel for the first respondent Corporation has drawn my attention to a communication sent up by the Regional Manager of the Corporation at Anantapur on 11.10.2010 to the District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Development Corporation Limited, Kurnool, requesting the latter to supply the subsidy seeds for distribution, to the extent of quantity allotted to Pamulapadu Manndal in addition to the supplies to be made to ARSK entrepreneur, Pamulapadu Mandal, run by the 5th respondent. From the above communication of the Regional Manager of the first respondent Corporation at Anantapur it is manifestly clear that respondents 1 to 4 have taken necessary and appropriate steps for complying with the orders passed by this Court. It is obvious that it is not the first respondent Corporation which actually supplies the seeds but yet another corporation, which has not been impleaded as a respondent to the writ petition, which supplies. On the face of this record it is absolutely difficult for anyone to even presume that respondents 1 to 4 have either violated the orders passed by this Court on 06.10.2010 or purposefully flouted the same. 5. I therefore do not consider that this is a fit case for prosecuting the respondents. I am convinced that the respondents have taken prompt action for complying with the orders passed by this Court. If some other corporation has either failed or has not complied with the request made by the first respondent Corporation, the first respondent Corporation or its officials cannot be held for contempt of court. 6. In that view of the matter, I dismiss this contempt case, but taking a compassionate view of the matter it is dismissed without costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: January 18, 2011. BSB