R. Thangavel v. Mr. Raju Ranjan, Ias

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.04.2018 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Contempt Petition No.964 of 2018 1.R.Thangavel 2.R.Palanisamy 3.S.Sakthivel 4.V.pLanisamy ... Petitioners Vs.

Mr.Raju.Ranjan, I.A.S., Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, Fort St George, Chennai-9.

... Respondent Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, seeking to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.42301 of 2016, dated 01.12.2016.

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Punniakoti For Respondent : Mr.K.Rajendira Prasad, AGP

ORDER

This Court, while disposing of the writ petition in W.P.No.42301 of 2016, by order dated 01.12.2016, directed the the petitioners to give a fresh / individual representation along with a copy of the order of this Court to the first respondent within a period of two weeks and on receipt of the same, the respondent was directed to

consider the same in the light of Govt.

Lr.No.4507/HM2/2009-26, dated 02.06.2011 of the respondent and Memo No.604/Nir.4(3)/2009, dated 03.06.2011 of the Principal Director, Highways Department, and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 2.The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the said order dated 01.12.2016 passed by this Court.

3.Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that there are ten writ petitioners; that pursuant to the order of this Court, out of the ten writ petitioner, only one person viz., S.Sakthivel (the 3rd petitioner in this contempt petition) has given the representation and his representation was considered and rejected by the respondent vide order dated 23.03.2017. So far as the other writ petitioners are concerned, they have not given any representation to the respondent as directed by this Court within the specified time. Therefore, the respondent is not in a position to pass orders. Thus, the learned Government Advocate submitted that there is no violation of the order of this Court on the part of the respondent and the order of this Court has been complied with by the respondent.

4.In view of the above submission, nothing survives in this contempt petition for adjudication. Hence, the contempt petition is closed.

SD/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(Commr.Cases) ssv //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2018. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

CO/21/05/2018.

One CC to Government Pleader, SR.6522.