S.Sundararaman v. D.Kannan Ips
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 11.3.2015 Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Contempt Petition No.655 of 2014 1.S.Sundararaman 2.R.Venkataraman
...Petitioners
Vs Mr.D.Kannan, IPS, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar, Chennai-20.
...Respondent
PETITION under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the orders passed in W.A.No.561 of 2013 dated 28.3.2013. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ramesh For Respondent : Mrs.A.Srijeyanthi, SGP Order of the Court was made by V.Ramasubramanian,J Alleging violation of the order passed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal, the respondents 1 and 2 on the writ appeal have come up with the above contempt petition.
2. Heard Mr.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.A. Srijeyanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
3. The petitioners in this contempt petition filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31523 of 2012 on the file of this
Court praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to initiate action against the fourth respondent in the writ petition and to forbear him from conducting katta panchayat. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge by an order dated 8.2.2013, directing the police to give protection to the petitioners herein to put up a construction in the subject property including a compound wall. As against the said order, the private respondents in the writ petition filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.561 of 2013. The said writ appeal was allowed partly by a judgment dated 28.3.2013, restricting the direction to give police protection only for the purpose of putting up a compound wall. Complaining that the police did not give protection even for putting up the compound wall, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. It is submitted on instructions by the learned Special Government Pleader that pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, the police granted protection for about 15 days, but the construction of the compound wall could not be completed.
5. The learned counsel, who appeared for the appellants in the writ appeal, submitted that the petitioners herein are attempting to use the police protection for putting up a pucca construction in the property.
6. However, today, the petitioners have filed an
affidavit to the effect that they seek police protection only for putting up a compound wall and for completing the unfinished work of putting up the compound wall alone.
7. In view of the said undertaking, the contempt petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to provide protection, subject to payment of necessary charges only to enable the petitioners to put up a compound wall as per the approved norms. The police protection will be available only for a period of 15 days and it is upto the petitioners to complete the construction of the compound wall as per the norms within the said period. During the period when the police protection is given, it is not open to the petitioners to take advantage and put up any other construction.
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.
SM/CO/26/03/2015 One CC to M/s.S.Ramesh, Advocate, SR.3561 To Mr.D.Kannan, IPS, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adyar, Chennai-20.