THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.519 OF 2010 Dated 28th June, 2010 Between: R.Mallesh …Petitioner And Sailaja Raman and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S.D.Gowd Counsel for the respondents: Sri B.Thimoti The Court made the following ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 21.04.2008 in WPMP No.28347 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.21862 of 2007.
I have heard Sri S.D.Gowd, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B.Thimoti, learned counsel representing the respondents- contemnors.
In the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, this Court, by order dated 21.04.2008, directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as Agro Rythu Seva Kendra dealer at B.K.Samudram, Ananthapur District, if his agency is not suspended or terminated by following due process of law. Alleging that despite the said order, the respondents have not been supplying stock to the petitioner to enable him to continue as dealer, the present Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is inter alia, stated that after passing of this order on 21.04.2008, respondent No.2 has supplied 161 metric tonnes of fertilisers from July, 2008 to February, 2009 to the petitioner and that since then the petitioner has not requested for supply of stocks. It is further stated that after filing of the present Contempt Case, the petitioner sent requisition dated 30.03.2010 for supply of fertilisers, which was received by respondent No.2 on 09.04.2010 and that on 14.04.2010, respondent No.2 has addressed a letter to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Ananthapur, for allotment of DAP urea and 20.20.0 of 12.00 metric tonnes each and that as the said Officer is the appropriate authority for allotting stocks, soon after receipt of the allotment from the Department of Agriculture, the stock will be supplied to the petitioner.
The abovementioned averments, which are not controverted by the petitioner, show that the respondents have allowed the petitioner to function as dealer by supplying as much as 161 metric tonnes of fertilisers from July 2008 to February, 2009. In the face of these facts, which went uncontrolverted, I do not find merit in the complaint of the petitioner that the respondents have violated the abovementioned order of this Court.
The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 28th June, 2010 vrn