Kuppammal v. M.D. Nasimuddin I.A.S.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.07.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Contempt Petition No.826 of 2018 Kuppammal W/o.Thoondimuthu (Late) ... Petitioner
Versus
1.M.D.Nasimuddin, I.A.S., State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, E&F Department, Fort.St George, Chennai - 9.
2.Dr.H.Basavaraju, IFS, The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.
... Respondents Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.44582 of 2016 dated 12.01.2017.
For Petitioner :
Ms.Selvi George For Respondents :
Mr.M.Balaramesh, Special Government Pleader (F) *****
O R D E R
The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order passed in W.P.No.44582 of 2016 dated 12.01.2017.
2. It is represented that the order, which is the subject matter of contempt, has been complied with vide proceedings of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Chennai - 600 015, in Na.Ka.No.LL2/9775/2017 dated 10.05.2018, which is taken on file and placed on record.
3. Mrs.Selvi George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in her usual vehemence, would contend that the reasons assigned in the order of rejection are per se unsustainable, as they are against the relevant norms and rules and would urge that the genuine request made by the petitioner, who is a widow, aged about 55 years, has unjustly been rejected and prays for interference. 4.
Per contra, Mr.Balaramesh, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest), would submit that if the petitioner has any grievance over the order of rejection, her remedy is to make a challenge to the said order.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.
6. This Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition, did not pass any positive order, but merely directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and pass orders and accordingly, it has been considered, which has
culminated in the order of rejection dated 10.05.2018.
7. This Court, sitting in contempt jurisdiction, cannot test the validity or legality of the order. Therefore, the Contempt Petition is closed. However, if the petitioner is so advised, she is always at liberty to challenge the proceedings dated 10.05.2018 in accordance with law before the competent forum.
SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) gm //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2019. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
PS/24/08/2018