Respondent No.1 has come to the adverse notice of this Court in more than one case. A contempt case wherein serious allegations have been made against him and his subordinate Tahsildar, is pending consideration before this Court. His conduct over a period suggests that he along with his subordinates have been foisting cases against fair price shop dealers due to external pressure. The very fact that in the instant case action was sought to be taken on the alleged excess of 93 kgs. out of 51.98 quintals of PDS rice itself would show that the respondents have been acting for extraneous reasons. Therefore, this Court is not prepared to believe the statement of respondent No.2 that due to the petitioner’s ill-health he has not lifted the essential commodities. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that they have issued any notice to the petitioner for not lifting the essential commodities during the said month. Having discontinued supplies from February, 2015, the respondents have resumed supplies obviously on coming to known that this contempt case was filed on 16.2.2015. Based on this conduct of the respondents, the plea of the petitioner that he is being harassed, is worthy of acceptance. However, as the respondents have resumed supplies from March, 2015, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and close the contempt case with a warning to the respondents not to indulge in the acts of harassment or foisting of false cases against the petitioner in future.
