Madras High CourtCONT P/752/2015disposed of

V.Karthick v. Ragupathy

2015-07-31Honourable Mr Justice T. S. Sivagnanam3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated:31.07.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Cont. Petition No.752 of 2015 V. Karthick .. Petitioner Vs Mr. Ragupathy, Deputy Director of Health, S.F.No.147, Pooluvapatti Pirivu, Neruperichal Village, Tiruppur-2.

.. Respondent Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying to punish the respondent for his wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order of this Court made in W.P.No.414 of 2014 dated 23.1.2015 under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

For Petitioner : Mr. C. Prakasam For Respondents : Mr. I. Arokiasamy, Government Advocate

O R D E R

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent for committing wilful disobedience of the order and direction made in W.P.No.414 of 2014 dated 23.1.2015.

2. Heard Mr.C. Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the Contempt Petitioner and Mr.I. Arokiasamy learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 3.On 3.7.2015, this Court has passed the following order;

"Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 28.4.2015, the respondent/contemner has passed an order on 4.6.2015.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the averments made in the order is absolutely false and only to get over the contempt proceedings, the respondent has passed the above said order. He has also produced photographs to show that the poultry farm is in existence without adopting any pollution control measures.

3. Hence, the respondent is directed to appear before this Court on 31.07.2015 along with all the files. The petitioner shall file the photographs in a typed-set to establish that poultry farm is being run in violation of the norms.

Post on 31.7.2015"

4. Pursuant to the above said order, the respondent/contemner is present in Court. It is submitted by the respondent/contemner that he has now been promoted as Joint Director, Public Health Department, Chennai and he states that investigation was conducted by himself and the officers and in the course of investigation, it was found that no Poultry farm is existing in that area.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement made by the respondent/contemner may be recorded and the interest of the petitioner will be safeguarded if the officials would ensure that no poultry farm will be run in that area without obtaining a valid licence.

6. The respondent/contemner who is present in Court assures that the Department will take all steps to ensure that no person will run a poultry farm without obtaining appropriate licence.

7. The statement of the respondent/contemner is recorded and the Contempt petition stands disposed of. The presence of the respondent is dispensed with. Consequently, connected Sub Application is closed. msr SD/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR(CLAA) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2015. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

SS/CO/14/08/2015 One CC to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate, SR.9931/15 One CC to the Government Pleader, SR.9915/15.