← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCC/2324/2015dismissed no costs

G.Kadirappa v. Sri. C.Viswanath

2016-01-04A Ramalingeswara Rao2 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO Contempt Case No.2324 of 2015 Date: 04-01-2016 Between:

G. Kadirappa .... Petitioner AND C. Viswanath .... Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO Contempt Case No.2324 of 2015 ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-implementation of the order dated 08-10-2015 in W.P.No.32146 of 2015. In the said order, the writ petition was allowed directing the 3rd respondent to supply kerosene quota from the month of October, 2015. Now a counter affidavit is filed stating as follows: "........It is submitted that the contentions of the petitioner are not correct. Admittedly, the petitioner was allotted the quota of kerosene for the months of October and November, 2015 and the petitioner has distributed the same to the cardholders during the above said respective months basing on the EPOs receipts issued by the regular F.P. Shop dealer of FP Shop No.4, 2nd ward, Abadpet, Hindupur Town i.e.

Eswarall Mahila Sangam, since the essential commodities, including the kerosene, are to be distributed to the cardholders by the dealers through ePOS device, as per the instructions issued by the Collector (CS), Ananthapuramu vide Rc.No.K2/09/2015, dated 16-09-2015. It is submitted that the petitioner has made a representation dt. 19-102015 through registered post. It is submitted as per the orders of the Hon'ble Court, the request of the petitioner was considered and ePOS devices was supplied to petitioner on 14-12-2015. It is submitted that since there was short supply of ePOS devices, the same could not be supplied to the petitioner earlier to 14.12.2015.

However, the kerosene quota for the months of October & November 2015 was supplied to the petitioner herein and the petitioner has distributed the same to the cardholder. Thus, there was no violation of orders of the Hon'ble Court by this respondent. All other contentions of the petitioner are incorrect......" In view of the same, nothing survives in the contempt case. The Contempt Case is accordingly closed.

___________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 04-01-2016 Ksn