Madras High CourtCONT P/99/2018dismissed

L.Rajasekar v. Thiru.M.Vijaya Kumar

2018-04-10Honourable Mr Justice T. S. Sivagnanam3 pages

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 10.4.2018 Coram :

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Contempt Petition No.99 of 2018 L.Rajasekar

...Petitioner

Vs Thiru M.Vijaya Kumar, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3.

...Respondent

PETITION under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for his willful and disobedience of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.23824 of 2016 dated 13.7.2016.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Krishnan For Respondent :

Ms.C.N.G.Niraimathi

ORDER

This contempt petition has been filed against the respondent alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 13.7.2016 in W.P.No.23824 of 2016. The operative portion of the said order dated 13.7.2016 reads thus :

"In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.6.2016 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any of the opinions suggested by the petitioner merit acceptance, then the second respondent may place the matter before the Commission and appropriate action may be taken. It is seen from the representation that the petitioner has pointed out other issues, which can also be considered along with the main issue."

2. As could be seen from the above order, a direction was issued to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to consider the representationof the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. This Court further observed that if the opinion suggested by the petitioner merits acceptance, then appropriate action may be taken. Thus, there was no positive direction issued to amend the on line application form. The respondent sent a reply to the petitioner on 16.9.2016 as to how his request to modify the on line

application form cannot be complied with. Therefore, if the petitioner is so aggrieved, he should challenge the appropriate proceedings and this Court finds that there is no contempt made out.

3. Accordingly, the above contempt petition is dismissed.

SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) rs //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.

PS/10/05/2018