V.Balamurugan v. T.P.Rajesh Ias

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16-02-2015 Coram :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN Contempt Petition No. 3330 of 2014 V. Balamurugan .. Petitioner

Versus

1. Mr. T.P. Rajesh, I.A.S., District Collector Krishnagiri

2. Mr. T. Balakrishnan District Revenue Officer Office of the District Collector Krishnagiri

3. Mrs. K. Vijaya Tahsildar Pochampalli Krishnagiri District

4. Mr. N. Gajendran Deputy Superintendent of Police Burgur Range Krishnagiri District

5. Mr. S.K. Balakrishnan President, Five Member Committee Arulmighu Sri Kannigaparameswari Temple Mariamman Koil Street, Santhur Krishnagiri District

6. Mr. R. Mohan The Inspector of Police Pochampalli Police Station Krishnagiri District .. Respondent Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of The Contempt of Courts Act praying to punish the respondents for having wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court in WP No. 28690 of 2013 dated 02.07.2014.

For Petitioner :

Mr. T.S. Rajamohan For Respondents :

Mr. T.N. Rajagopalan Special Government Pleader for RR1 to 4 and 6

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this contempt petition praying to punish the respondents for their alleged non-compliance of the order dated 02.07.2014 passed by this Court in WP No. 28690 of 2013.

2.

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition No. 28690 of 2013 praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 to issue appropriate direction based on his complaint dated 07.10.2013 against the fifth respondent and the committee members besides their men, agents, servants, etc., from in any manner interfering with nor disturbing the petitioner and his family members from exercising their rights and privileges to offer prayer to the temple of Arulmighu Sri Kannigaparameswari Temple besides to live in the Village peacefully and to eke out their livelihood.

3.

By order dated 02.07.20-14, this Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the first respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 07.10.2013 of the petitioner on merits, after affording opportunity to him and the concerned parties as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

4.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent did not conduct any enquiry or passed

orders on his representation dated 07.10.2013 and thereby disobeyed the orders passed by this Court.

5.

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 would contend that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, on the direction of the first respondent, a peace committee meeting was conveyed by the third respondent on 22.01.2015 to settle the disputes amicably in which the petitioner, fifth respondent and members of the Aryavysya community have attended. In the peace committee meeting, it was resolved that the petitioner or his family members will not be prohibited from offering prayers to the deity in any manner. Thereafter, a resolution was passed to that effect by the third respondent on 22.01.2015 recording that the dispute has been amicably settled between the rival parties. The petitioner also signed the resolution dated 22.01.2015 and therefore the present contempt petition filed by the petitioner need not be entertained.

6.

I heard the learned counsel for both sides. The copy of the resolution dated 22.01.2015 has been produced to this Court. It is seen that the petitioner participated in the peace committee meeting on 22.01.2015 and also signed the resolution as a token of acceptance to the decision taken thereon. As per the resolution, it was resolved that the petitioner or his family members need not be restrained from

offering prayers to the deity, by any one in any manner. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the order passed by this Court warranting initiation of contempt proceedings. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. No costs. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution dated 22.01.2015 passed by the third respondent in any manner, it is open to him to challenge it in a manner known to law.

rsh 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/27/03/2015 One CC to Government Pleader, SR.2222 one CC to Mr.T.S.Rajamohan, Advocate, SR.2291