C.Sumitra v. Vasuki, Ias

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.11.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Contempt Petition No.1012 of 2017 in W.P.No.32049 of 2016 C.Sumitra .. Petitioner vs Ms.Vasuki, I.A.S., The Director of Social Welfare, Directorate of Social Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

.. Respondent PRAYER: Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts, Act to punish the respondent herein for his wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court made in W.P.No.32049 of 2016 dated 14.09.2016. For Petitioner : Mr.Rajkumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Dhananjayan Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2.In pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 14.09.2016 in W.P.No.32049 of 2016 and after filing the present contempt petition, an order dated 06.10.2017, is passed by the respondent herein sanctioning Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner under Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Marriage Assistance Scheme. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the order passed by this court in the above writ petition has been complied with.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- under Scheme II of the above said claim and however, the respondent has chosen to pay only Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, she submitted that the said order is not an order in strict compliance of the order passed by this Court. 4.Perusal of the order passed by this Court in the above writ petition would show that the second respondent was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.27214 of 2016 dated

04.08.2016.

5.Now, an order is passed by the respondent by considering the representation of the petitioner however, granting only Rs.25,000/- . If the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the quantum by filing separate proceedings. In the present contempt petition, the eligible quantum of payment cannot be decided, as it is a different issue giving rise to different cause of action, for which the petitioner has to agitate the matter by filing a separate proceeding. Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed, however, by granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 06.10.2017, passed by the respondent in the manner known to law with regard to the quantum of such payment.

01.11.2017 Speaking/Non Speaking Index :Yes/No vri K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.

vri To Ms.Vasuki, I.A.S., The Director of Social Welfare, Directorate of Social Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

CONT.P NO.1012 OF 2017 01.11.2017