Potu Bhaskar Rao vs V. Somi Reddy

Heard Mr. Shaik Madar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Palle Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

Mr. Potu Bhaskar Rao, the petitioner in C.C. No.1242 of 2022, had filed the writ petition vide W.P. No.10465 of 2021 to declare the action of respondent No.5 therein in suspending the license of the petitioner vide Proceedings in Cr.No.166/2021/P&Ex/B6-2, dated 15.04.2021 and also locking his liquor shop under a seal, as illegal, and consequently set aside the said order. This Court vide order dated 28.04.2021 in I.A. No.2 of 2021 in W.P. No.10465 of 2021, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, suspended the impugned proceedings dated 15.04.2021 issued by respondent No.5 therein in Cr.No.166/2021/P&Ex/ B6-2.

Like-wise, W.P. No.10469 of 2021 is filed by Mr. Gogineni Ravi Kumar, the petitioner in C.C. No.1243 of 2022, to declare the action of respondent No.5 therein in suspending the license of the petitioner vide Proceedings in Cr.No.166/2021/P&Ex/B6, dated 15.04.2021 and also locking his liquor shop under a seal, as illegal, and consequently set aside the said order. This Court vide order dated 28.04.2021 in I.A. No.2 of 2021 in W.P. No.10469 of 2021, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, suspended the impugned proceedings dated 15.04.2021 issued by respondent No.5 therein in Cr.No.166/2021/P&Ex/ B6-2.

The petitioners in both the said writ petitions have filed the present Contempt Cases alleging violation of the aforesaid orders by the respondent herein. According to them, they have brought to the notice of the respondent about the order dated 28.04.2021 with a request to remove the seal and lock of the subject shops. But, the respondent intentionally disobeyed the same. Again on 30.04.2021, both the petitioners have sent copy of the orders through Cell phone of Mr. Gogineni Ravi Kumar, the petitioner in W.P. No.10469 of 2021 to the Cell Phone of the respondent through WhatsApp. Even then, the respondent failed to take action or implement the said order by removing the seal and locks of the subject shops to enable the petitioners to continue their business. On 30.04.2021, both the petitioners have submitted a letter informing about the interim suspension of order granted by this Court with a similar request. The respondent did not act upon the same.

On 01.05.2021, both the petitioners have handed over copy of the orders to the respondent in his office and requested him to remove the seal and permit them to continue business. But, he failed to take any action and he has willfully deliberately disobeyed the aforesaid orders passed by this Court.

Both the petitioners got issued contempt notice dated 02.05.2021 and the same were served on the respondent on 03.05.2021 in his office and its copies were also served on the Superior Officers by post. On 03.05.2021, the respondent has passed revocation orders and consequently the Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise Station, Singareni, handed over the keys and the Stock Register to the employees of the petitioners after obtaining their signatures. According to the petitioners in both the contempt cases, the respondent has deliberately and willfully disobeyed the aforesaid orders passed by this Court.

The respondent had filed counter contending that this Court had granted interim order in I.A. No.2 of 2021 in both the writ petitions on 28.04.2021 and, therefore, there is no illegality on the part of the respondent in the contempt cases. Hence, the petitioners are neither having power nor authority to file present contempt cases against the respondent. Hence, on this ground alone, the contempt cases are liable to be closed by imposing exemplary costs on the petitioners. The said contention of the respondent is absurd. He cannot contend that the contempt cases are not maintainable. He has to explain as to whether he has complied with the order under contempt or not. Instead of doing so, he has stated that the contempt cases are not maintainable and it has to be closed by imposing exemplary costs.

It is further contended that the writ petitioners have submitted a covering letter before the respondent office on 29.04.2021 without enclosing the copies of the orders dated 28.04.2021. On 29.04.2021, apart from that, the petitioners could not enclose copies of the orders along with covering letter. The respondent office authorities have received the said order from learned Government Pleader Office (Excise) on 01.05.2021 i.e., Saturday. They have placed the said order before the respondent on 03.05.2021 and the respondent immediately verified and gone through the order passed by this Court and immediately complied with the said order on 03.05.2021 by way of issuing revocation order. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the respondent in implementing the order passed by this Court. Moreover, on 02.05.2021 being Sunday, Public Holiday, the petitioners herein intentionally, ill-motive, filed the present contempt cases against the respondent and are trying to blackmail him. Therefore, the contempt cases have to be closed on this ground alone.

The aforesaid facts would reveal that even according to the respondent, he came to know about the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court dated 28.04.2021 on 29.04.2021. According to the respondent, copy of the order was not served on him. But, he has not made any attempt to verify the said fact from the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise of this Court. However, on 30.04.2021, the petitioners in both the cases have submitted written representations informing the respondent about granting of interim order by this Court. Even then, the respondent failed to confirm the said fact from the office of learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. Even according to the respondent, copy of the order was served in his office on 01.05.2021. Even then, he has not complied with the order dated 28.04.2021 passed by this Court. According to him, his subordinates have placed copy of the said order before him only on 03.05.2021 on which day, he has passed revocation order in compliance with the order passed by this Court. Thus, there is delay on the part of the respondent in complying with the order under contempt.

As discussed above, the respondent failed to comply with the order passed by this Court dated 28.04.2021 on the ground that he has not received copy of the said order. The order dated 28.04.2021 was passed upon hearing learned Government Counsel for Excise. Thus, the respondent has admitted that he has received the representation dated 29.04.2021 submitted by the petitioners informing about the interim order grated by this Court dated 28.04.2021. He failed to make an attempt to know the said order by contacting the office of the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise. Even on receipt of the interim order dated 28.04.2021 on 01.05.2021, he has not implemented the said order. The only explanation offered by him is that his subordinates have placed the said order dated 28.04.2021 on 03.05.2021 received by them on 01.05.2021. Thus, the respondent failed to comply with the said order even on 01.05.2021.

The aforesaid facts would clearly reveal that the respondent has willfully and deliberately violated the order dated 28.04.2021 passed by this Court in I.A. No.2 of 2021 in W.P. Nos.10465 and 10469 of 2021.

Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that this Court has closed the aforesaid two (02) writ petitions on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the license period was expired, therefore, he seeks to close the present contempt cases. As discussed above, mere closing writ petition on the ground that the license period was expired will not absolve liability of the respondent in the present contempt proceedings.

As discussed above, the respondent herein has deliberately and intentionally violated the interim order dated 28.04.2021 passed by this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.P. Nos.10465 and 10469 of 2021. On the other hand, he is seeking to dismiss the present contempt cases with exemplary costs.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and also considering the fact that the respondent has already complied with the order under contempt and that the writ petitions were closed, there is delay in implementing the order under contempt, both the Contempt Cases are disposed of warning the respondent not to repeat such acts in future.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in both the Contempt Cases shall stand closed.