M PULLA REDDY Vs. J RAMANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner laid this action against three respondents, J. Ramanand, the Joint Collector M. A. Shariff, Excise Superintendent of Cuddapah District and Ekabathula Ramaiah, the arrack contractor, under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (Act No. 70 of 1971), for short the Act. The case of the petitioner practically admitted by the Excise Superintendent as R.W. 1 is that the petitioner was the highest bidder for Rs. 9,700.00 per month of the lease-hold right to sell arrack in group of shops in Kamasamudram, Komarajupally and Muthukur in Excise Sidhout range of Cuddapah District for the excise year 1986-87. The auction was held in the evening of 22/09/1986. His signature was obtained on the bid register and he was issued Ex. A-1 auction slip. It is his cases that he deposited with the second respondent one month rent of Rs. 9,700.00 and Rs. 2338.00 earnest money in cash, in total, sum of Rs. 12,028.00 and thereafter he left the place. He paid the licence fee on 24/09/1986, under Exs. A-2 to A-4 challans. It was rumoured on 24th that the re-auction is to be conducted on 25/09/1986 due to political pressure of the local M.L.A. and therefore, he came to this Court. He filed W.P. No. 13419/86 and W.P.M.P. No. 17494 of 1986 for stay of re-auction, by lunch motion and was admitted on 25/09/1986 at 2-15 p.m. and interim direction was granted and was communicated by telegraphic orders. According to him, the telegram was received by the respondent at 10-30 p.m. on the same night. He went by bus on 25/09/1986 itself. In the morning of 26/09/1986 he met the Excise Superintendent and informed him personally of the interim order passed by this Court and also filed copy of the Telegram who told him thus (Already the auction was held and the High Court order does not hold good). On the same day, he filed another application before the second respondent and requested him not to re-auction the lease-hold rights of the village and not to take any further action. He did not stop further action. He received the amounts from the third respondent and instructed the Circle Inspector and the Sub-Inspector of Excise to visit the three villages for verification of location of the shops and demarcate the boundaries with a view to enter into the agreement with the third respondent. The petitioner again filed on 29/09/1986, three WPMPs. WPMP No. 17962/86 to implead the third respondent, WPMP No. 17963 of 1986 for injunction to restrain the respondents to open the arrack shops and WPMP No. 17964 of 1986 for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to enter into counterpart agreement with the petitioner. The case was posted to 30/09/1986, but did not reach. On 1/10/1986, the first two petitions were ordered and notice was ordered on the third petition. 2/10/1986 was holiday. He could obtain the carbon copy on 3/10/1986 and he went and met the respondents 1 and 2 on October 4, 1986 with the order passed by the Court. But, they did not take any action thereon. He deposited on 28/09/1986 the two months rentals, etc. under Exs. A-6 to A-7. On 6/10/1986, the shops were opened by 3rd respondent and arrack was issued. He approached the first respondent with a written application on 8/10/1986 indicating that if the shops are not closed, he would be compelled to approach this court is Contempt proceedings. But, no action was taken. They refused to receive it. Accordingly, he sent a petition to the first and second respondents, by registered post and they were received by them on 9/10/1986. Equally, he also sent by registered post to the third respondent but, by the date of the filing of the contempt application, he did not receive the acknowledgment. Accordingly, he filed the contempt application on 16/10/1986. Thus the case of the petitioner is that he is the highest bidder and bid was accepted and he complied with the rules and despite obtaining the orders from this Court and having received the orders, the respondents did not stop furher action. The carbon copy of the second order was refused by respondents 1 and 2 necessitating him to send by registered post. It is a wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court.

(2.) The averments in the counter-affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 2 are the same. They admit that the petitioner is the highest bidder for the auction conducted on 22/09/1986. But, before accepting the bid of the petitioner, the third respondent filed the application Ex. B. 3 for re-auction and the petitioner was sent for but was absconding. Accordingly, the auction was not confirmed. Then it was posted for re-auction on 25/09/1986. The re-auction was conducted on that date. The third respondent became the highest bidder. He paid the amounts on 26/10/1986. The telegraphic orders of this Court in WPMP No. 17494 of 1986 was received by the first respondent at 11-30 AM on 26/09/1986 and he transmitted to the second respondent who received it at 2 p.m. and by that time the licences were already issued. Accordingly, they could not have done anything. They deny the allegations that the petitioner approached them on September 26, and 4/10/1986 with the Carbon copy. They received it only on 9/10/1986. The third respondent has already opened the shops on 3/10/1986 and he has also drawn the arrack. There is no direction issued by this court to stop the operation of the supply of arrack to the 3rd respondent. Therefore, they could not do anything and that both the orders have become infructuous. The 3rd respondent pleaded that re-auction was ordered, he became the highest bidder; he paid the entire amount on 26/09/1986 itself and deposited the two months rentals, etc. on the next day. He also obtained the lease deeds from three persons in three different villages for opening the shops. Officers have inspected the places. They found that the premises are suitable. Accordingly, he complied with all the conditions. He also entered into counter-part agreement on 26/09/1986 and thereafter the licences were granted. He has drawn the arrack on 3/10/1986 and he has been doing the business. He received the registered letter sent by the petitioner only long after the opening of the shops. There is no direction to close the shops. Accordingly did not commit any contempt. If this court comes to the conclusion that any contempt is committed, he tendered an unconditional apology and requests this court to accept the same.

(3.) When the contempt case has come up for hearing, since the facts are in acute dispute, I directed the learned District Munsif, Cuddapah, to record the evidence of the parties and to transmit the same to this court. Accordingly, the learned District Munsif recorded the evidence. The petitioner has examined himself as P.W. 1 and another witnesses as P.W. 2 and marked as many as Exs. A-1 to A-7. The Joint Collector was not examined himself as a witness. The second respondent was examined as R.W. 1, the Assistant Excise Superintendent as R.W. 2. As many as Exs.B. 1 to B. 32 were marked on their behalf. The third respondent also did not examine himself as a witness.