- (1.) This suo moto contempt rule was issued for the reason that though orders were made in writ petition No. 15788 (W) of 2005 directing the respondents- therein to produce the original records connected with the selection process in question, the authorities concerned were not producing such recFs.
(2.) Questioning the steps taken by the authorities of the food and supplies department of the government in connection with appointment of a modified ration distributor in Bhupatinagar, District - Purba Medinipur, several writ petitions including the one in connection wherewith the contempt rule was issued were filed. By order dated August 30, 2005 the authorities were directed to produce original records of the selection process. The order was made after considering an allegation that the minister in charge of the department unauthorizedly interfered with the selection process by giving certain directions in favour of some candidate. Subsequently several orders were made directing the respondents in the cases to produce the original records, but the records were not produced, and instead xerox copies of part of the records were produced by the district controller of food and supplies.
(3.) In response to the suo moto contempt rule the persons who were the additional chief secretary and commissioner of food and supplies, the director, district distribution, procurement and supply, food and supplies, and the district controller of food and supplies at the relevant point of time have filed their respective affidavits. In his affidavit the district controller has said that he sent the records to the director on June 21, 2005. In his affidavit the director has said that on receipt of the records from the district controller he sent them to the food and supplies department of the government under memo No. 25/ DDPS dated July 29, 2005, and that the original records were not returned by the department of the government to his office. In her affidavit the commissioner of food and supplies has said that since the records could not be traced out, in compliance with directions of this court they could not be produced. The question is whether the condemners wilfully disobeyed the orders made by this court.;