Kondamuri Kusuma Nagendra Prasad v. R.Arulpragasam And 2 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.02.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN Kondamuri Kusuma Nagendra Prasad ..

Petitioner Vs.

1. R. Arulpragasam The Commissioner Yanam Municipality, Yanam.

2. D.Bharathy Member Secretary Yanam Planning Authority, Yanam 533 464.

3. Vegesna Bhaskara Raju ..

Respondents [R2 & R3 impleaded vide order dt. 05.11.2024] Prayer : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the wilful disobedience of the order dated 04.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.20030 of 2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.Sunny Sheen Akkara For Mrs.V.Srimathi For Respondents : Mr.Vasanthakumar Addl. Govt. Pleader (Pondy) for R1 & R2 Mr.M.S.Seshadri for R3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have perused the report of Registrar Judicial which shows that e-filing of an affidavit dated 07.01.2025 had taken place on 08.01.2025, along with a copy of the resolution dated 30.12.2024.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute it and submits that he had received a copy of affidavit dated 07.01.2025, along with copy of the resolution dated 30.12.2024, through mail communication, on 08.01.2025 itself.

3. Learned State counsel places before us a copy of the order dated 05.03.2025, by which, an order in favour of third respondent has been passed, keeping the demolition notice in abeyance till the issuance of notification of Proposed Comprehensive Development Plan 2041 and notification of Regularisation of Unauthorisedly Constructed Buildings and Buildings Constructed in Deviation to the

Sanctioned Plan Scheme by the Government of Puducherry. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the manner in which relief has been granted in the appeal does not amount to allowing the appeal.

4. In our opinion, one way or other, rightly or wrongly, some decision has been taken. Therefore, we are not inclined to proceed further in the matter.

5. We have not commented upon the merits of the decision taken on 30.12.2024 or the order passed on 05.03.2025. It is open to petitioner to take such remedy as may be available under law, if he is aggrieved by the resolution dated 30.12.2024 and the order dated 05.03.2024.

6. Learned State counsel shall supply a copy of the order dated 05.03.2025 to petitioner, today itself.

7. The original records kept in sealed cover are returned to

learned counsel for respondent/officer in-charge under acknowledgment of receipt.

8. Contempt petition is closed.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 03.02.2026 Index :

Yes/No Yes/No kpl

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

(kpl) 03.02.2026