M.Palani v. Mr.Sridharan,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.12.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Contempt Petition Nos.2591 to 2594, 2600, 2603, 2605 to 2608, 2613 & M.Palani ... Petitioner (in Cont P.No.2591 of 2016) E.Maharani ... Petitioner (in Cont P.No.2592 of 2016) C.Ramesh ... Petitioner (in Cont P.No.2593 of 2016) E.Hemavathy ... Petitioner (in Cont P.No.2594 of 2016) R.Sumathi ... Petitioner (in Cont P.No.2600 of 2016) D.Arumugam ... Petitioner (in Cont P.No.2603 of 2016) R.Amutha ... Petitioner (in Cont P.No.2605 of 2016) A.Shankar ... Petitioner (in Cont P.No.2606 of 2016) M.Pushparaj ... Petitioner (in Cont P.No.2607 of 2016) K.Ellappan ... Petitioner (in Cont P.No.2608 of 2016) E.Valli ... Petitioner (in Cont P.No.2613 of 2016) G.Annammal ... Petitioner (in Cont P.No.2614 of 2016) -Vs-
Mr.Sridharan The Tahsildar Avadi Taluk, Thiruvallur District.
... Respondents Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, for his willful disobedience of the orders of this Honourable Court dated 26.08.2014, 20.08.2014, 20.08.2014, 20.08.2014, 26.08.2014, 26.08.2014, 26.08.2014, 26.08.2014, 26.08.2014, 26.08.2014, 26.08.2014 and 26.08.2014 respectively and punish the respondent for not complying the orders of the Hon'ble Court in WP.Nos.23112 of 2014, 22406 of 2014, 22405 of 2014, 22404 of 2014, 23078 of 2014, 23115 of 2014, 23116 of 2014, 23073 of 2014, 23111 of 2014, 23077 of 2014, 23113 of 2014 and 23074 of 2014 respectively. For Petitioner : Ms.Aishwarya for M/s. R and P Partners (in all contempt petitions) For Respondents : Mr.K.Dhananjayan Special Government Pleader (in all contempt petitions) C O M M O N O R D E R All these contempt petitions are filed by complaining that the orders passed in the respective writ petitions have not been complied with.
2. This Court issued a statutory notice on 24.11.2017. Accordingly, the respondent is present before this Court today.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the orders passed by this Court in those writ petitions have been complied with by passing an order dated 28.11.2017.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has only made certain recommendations without considering the petitioners' request for allotment of alternative living place and by the said proceedings, it is not known as to whether the order passed by this Court in the respective writ petitions have been complied with or not.
5. A Perusal of the order passed in the writ petitions would show that only a direction was issued to the respondent Tahsildar to consider the representation of the petitioners on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Now an order is passed. If the petitioners are still aggrieved against the said proceedings, it is always open to the petitioners to agitate the matter separately. In any event, the contempt petitions cannot be kept pending in view of the fact that
the respondent has passed an order on 28.11.2017. Accordingly, all these contempt petitions are closed, however, granting liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy against the order passed by the respondent dated 28.11.2017 in the manner known to law. 22.12.2017 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No mk
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU.J., mk Contempt Petition Nos.2591 to 2594, 2600, 2603, 2605 to 2608, 2613 & 2614 of 2016 22.12.2017