Madras High CourtCONT P/429/2017closed

S.Rajagopal v. H.Ilangovan

2017-03-07Honourable Mr Justice M. Sathyanarayanan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.03.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Cont.P.No.429/2017 in WP.No.31240/2015 S.Rajagopal ..

Petitioner Vs.

1.Mr.H.Ilangovan The District of Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

2.Mr.K.Mohan The Director of Adi Dravdiar Welfare Officer, Perambalur, Perambalur District.

3.Mr.Rajendran The Special Tahsildhar Adi Dravidar Welfare, Perambalur District.

.. Respondents Contempt Petition filed under section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in which the order made in WP.No.31240/2015 dated 05.10.2015.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Krishnamurthy For Respondents : Mr.A.Kumar, Spl.GP

ORDER

Mr.A.Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 10.02.2017 in Na.Ka.No.I1/2094/2016, has rejected the request made by the petitioner for regularisation and conferment of other consequential benefits and would further add that the said order is in per se violation of the order dated 05.10.2015 made in WP.No.31240/2015. Per contra, Mr.A.Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that this Court has merely directed the respondent concerned to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within the stipulated time frame and taking into consideration the claim made by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent thought fit to reject the same in accordance with law vide the above cited communication and prays for closure of this contempt petition.

This Court, while disposing of the writ petition, merely directed the concerned respondent to consider the representation on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same within the stipulated time and accordingly, the 2nd respondent has given a disposal and in the considered opinion of the Court, the remedy

available if any, to the petitioner is to challenge the proceedings in accordance with law.

Hence, the contempt petition is closed and if the petitioner is so advised, he is at liberty to challenge the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 10.02.2017 made in Na.Ka.No.I1/2094/2016in accordance with law before the competent Forum.

SD/- JOINT REGISTRAR(OS)I/C AP //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2017. 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/09/06/2017 To 1.Mr.H.Ilangovan The District of Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

2.Mr.K.Mohan The Director of Adi Dravdiar Welfare Officer, Perambalur, Perambalur District.

3.Mr.Rajendran The Special Tahsildhar Adi Dravidar Welfare, Perambalur District.

one cc to the Govt.Pleader, High Court,sr.No.3725/17