← Library
Madras High CourtCONT P/806/2016disposed of

S. Thangamariappan v. Leoni Superintendent

2016-04-27Honourable Mr Justice T. S. Sivagnanam6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.04.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM CONT.P.No.806 of 2016 S.Thangmariappan ... Petitioner vs.

1.Leoni Superintendent CMDA, 1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai-8 2.Kiran Gurrala The Chief Executive Officer CMDA, 1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore.

... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for the willful disobedience and non-compliance of the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.25212 of 2015 dated 26.11.2015. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents :

Mr.M.Karthikeyan

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contemnor.

2. The petitioner came before this Court challenging

the order of cancellation of allotment made in his favour in the Koyambedu wholesale market for trading food grains. The order impugned in the writ petition was dated 30.06.2015 which stated that the allotment is cancelled for nnon payment of the amount. The respondent CMDA filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is a defaulter as he had paid only a sum of Rs.1,68,970/- as against the total amount payable at Rs.22,97,970/-. The Court considered the entire matter and after taking note of the stand taken by CMDA allowed the writ petition and the operative portion of the order reads as follows: "..

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, it is evidently clear that the impugned order is merely a total non-application of mind. It is a pre-prepared printed format and only the name of the petitioner and the allotment number has been filled up and prior to the issuance of cancellation order, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. On this ground alone, the impugned order is set aside. That apart, there is no proof produced by the respondents to show that the communication dated 05.12.2013 has been received by the petitioner and in the absence of the same, it has to be held that there is violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the allotment order dated 12.07.2013 does not state the amount of instalment payable by the petitioner. All the columns are left blank, this is one more reason to hold that the entire

auction is vitiated on account of nonapplication of mind.

6. With all the above grounds, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

Accordingly writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 30.06.2015 is quashed and the petitioner is granted three months time to pay the balance amount due and payable to the respondent as in the said schedule. No costs. "

The petitioner has received the certified copy of the order on 22.12.2015 and alleging non compliance, he sent a legal notice through his counsel on 24.02.2016 and since he was not favoured with any reply he filed this contempt petition before this Court on 01.03.2016. On notice being issued to the respondent, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit and in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit the following has been stated.

3. I further submit that based on the Hon'ble Court order, a demand Notice has been issued to the petitioner vide Letter No.FGM/5602/2013, dated 10.03.2016 directing to pay a sum of Rs.28,07,884/- outstanding towards balance cost of the shop with interest due as on 31.03.2016 after getting confirmation from Accounts Division. The details of arrears are as follows:

Instalment due - Rs.22,97,970/- (Rs.1,06,450+ 2,66,125X4) Interest due @ 14.5% - Rs. 6,78,883/- From 30.09.13 to 31.03.16 ---------------------

Total due - Rs.29,76,854/- The petitioner has remitted only 10% of the total cost of the shop prior to the Hon'ble Court order - Rs. 1,68,970/- -------------------- Outstanding due as on 31.03.2016 Rs.28,07,884/-

4. It has to be seen whether the stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit as referred above is in compliance and in consonance with the order issued by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has to pay the total amount of Rs.21,29,000/- after giving credit to the amount paid viz., Rs.1,68,970/-. Two issues would arise in this case viz., the levy of interest for the period from 30.09.2013 to 31.03.2016 and whether the amount of Rs.1,68,970/- paid by the petitioner should be deducted after interest being levied on the total amount. With regard to the first issue it has to be pointed out that till the date the impugned order of cancellation was passed i.e 30.06.2015, the premises was not ready for occupation.

Therefore, there can be no justification for levy of interest on the petitioner. That apart, this Court also found that nothing had been stated in the said order of cancellation and the same was quashed. Further more, there was no proof to show that allotment order dated 12.02.

was furnished under the Right to Information Act it was found that all the relevant columns were left blank. In such circumstances the levy of interest from 30.09.2013 is held to be arbitrary and unsustainable and accordingly deserves to be set aside. However, the petitioner having not taken effective steps to execute the order passed by this Court on 26.11.2015, this Court is if the view that the petitioner should pay interest at the rate of 14.5% from 30.06.2015 till the date the entire amount is remitted. The interest shall be calculated on Rs.21,29,000/- i.e after giving credit to payment of Rs.1,68,970/- and not as done by the respondent in the counter statement.

5. Accordingly, the levy of interest for the period from 30.09.2013 till 29.06.2015 at 14.5% is set aside and the petitioner is directed to pay interest from 30.06.2015 till the date of payment on Rs.21,29,000/- at 14.5%.

6. The respondent CMDA shall take note of this order to issue revised demand to the petitioner and grant the petitioner 15 days time to remit the same.

7. With the above observation, the contempt petition is closed.

SD/ JOINT REGISTRAR(OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2016. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

To 1.Leoni Superintendent CMDA, 1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai-8 2.Kiran Gurrala The Chief Executive Officer CMDA, 1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore.

CO/01/06/2016 One CC to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate, SR.5572/2016 One CC to M/s.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.5551/2016