Eswaran Alias Eswaramurthy, v. Prasanna Ramasamy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.02.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Eswaran @ Eswaramurthy .. Petitioner vs Mr.Prasanna Ramasamy The District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur District.

.. Respondent Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for contempt of court for disobeying the order passed in W.P.No.31554 of 2017 dated 30.04.2019. For Petitioner :

Mr.C.Anadharamani For Respondent :

Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

Read this order in continuation of and in conjunction with order dated 24.01.2024 reading thus:- 'Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent and states that the present Contempt Petition is an abuse of process of Court.

2.

He draws attention to the 1/4

Cont.P.No.1040 of 2022, which has also been filed for punishing the respondent for disobedience of order dated 30.04.2019 in W.P.No.31554 of 2017. The prayer is that case is identical to this Contempt Petition.

3. It is for the petitioner to explain why he is repeatedly approaching this Court, particularly, since the Cont.P.No.1040 of 2022 has been closed on 07.07.2022 recording compliance with the Writ order.

4. List on 02.02.2024.'

2.

The petitioner counsel was not present on 02.02.2024 when the matter was called and the matter is listed for dismissal today.

3.

Mr.Anadharamani, learned counsel for the petitioner, would express his apology for non-appearance on 02.02.2024. He would also express his regret for approaching this Court the second time alleging contempt as against order dated 30.04.2019, stating that the petitioner had not informed him of earlier Contempt Petition. It is for this reason, that the present contempt petition does not make any reference to the earlier contempt petition.

4.

Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader, would reiterate that the conduct of the petitioner does not warrant condonation insofar as the directions under order dated 30.04.2019 in W.P.No.31544 of 2017 have been complied with, a long time ago and this has been recorded by this Court on 2/4

07.07.2022 while closing the earlier contempt petition. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would have no defence to this factual position.

6.

Hence and as a measure of cautioning the petitioner, a token cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed, payable to the Blue Cross, Eldams Road, Chennai, within a period of two weeks from date of issuance of a copy of this order. Let memo of compliance be filed in the Registry.

7.

This contempt petition stands closed in term of this order.

06.02.2024 Index:Yes/No ssm Note to Registry : Memo to be circulated in Chambers once filed. 3/4

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

ssm 06.02.2024 4/4