P.Lakshmanan v. Elangovan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYA NATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Contempt Petition No.845 of 2022 P.Lakshmanan ...

Petitioner ...Vs...

Mr.Elangovan, Commissioner, Erode City Municipal Corporation, Erode- 638 011.

....

Respondent Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the Respondent for Willful disobedience of the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.21665 of 2021 dated 07.10.2021 and punish him under the relevant provisions of the contempt of Courts Act 1971. For Petitioner :

Ms.Thenmozhi Shivaperumal For Respondent :

Mr. Raja Mathivanan ***** 1/4

O R D E R

This contempt petition is filed alleging non compliance of the order passed by this Court on 07.10.2021 in W.P.No.21665 of 2021. 2.

Today, when the contempt petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Advocate Commissioner filed a report dated 12.06.2023, pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 06.04.2023, wherein, it is stated that vehicles are not parked on the road causing congestion or traffic and that the Corporation has also appointed a few individuals to control the traffic. 3.

For the sake of ready reference, paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the Advocate Commissioner's report are extracted below: "2.1. Between 4AM and 6.30 AM on 11.05.2023, numerous vehicles entered the Market through the public road. However, vehicles were not parked on the said road causing conjestion or traffic. The Corporation has also appointed a few individuals to control the traffic. 2.2. In the market, there is a separate area designated for parking of vehicles which bring cattle to the market. On 11.5.2023, the said areas were used for parking of vehicles. Since, this parking space is being used, vehicles are not parked on the road. "

2/4

4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that when the Advocate Commissioner went for inspection, persons were deputed to ensure that the vehicles are not parked.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Corporation has appointed some persons to regulate the traffic and the vehicles are not parked on the road.

6. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the Respondent and also recording the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 12.06.2023, this Contempt Petition stands closed. In case, the petitioner has any grievance, it is open to him to get it redressed in accordance with law.

7. The Petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as additional remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner. [S.V.N,J.,] [S.S.K,J.,] 27.06.2023 arr 3/4

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

arr Contempt Petition No.845 of 2022 27.06.2023 4/4