Madras High CourtCONT P/896/2016closed

Priyanka Senguttuvan v. D Jayakumar

2016-08-01Honourable Mr Justice M.M.Sundresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 01.08.2016 Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH Contempt Petition Nos.896 and 897 of 2016 Mrs.Priyanka Senguttuvan .. Petitioner in both Cont. Petitions

Versus

Thiru.S.Jayakumar The Tahsildar, No.18, Semmancheri Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

.. Respondent in both Cont. Petitions Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, seeking to punish the respondents for having deliberately, wilfully and wantonly and contumaciously disobeyed the common order dated 07.09.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 19478 and 19479 of 2015.

For Petitioners .. Mr.S.Vadivelu in both Cont. Petitions For Respondent .. Mr.I.Arokiasamy, G.A.

in both Cont. Petitions

O R D E R

Alleging that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with by the respondent, the present Contempt Petition has been filed.

2. Heard Mr.S.Vadivelu, learned counsel appearing

for the Petitioner and Mr.I.Arokiasamy, Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondent.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with in a letter and spirit. Therefore, the Respondent will have to be directed to act accordingly.

4. Learned Government Advocate submits that by the proceedings dated 23.7.2016, the Respondent has passed an order after affording opportunity of hearing. A copy of the said order is produced before this Court.

5. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent has passed the order without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hence, the order of this Court has not been complied with.

6. A perusal of the order dated 23.7.2016 passed by the Respondent would show that before passing the said order, the petitioner was heard. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, it is open to him to workout his remedy in the manner known to law. Since the Respondent has complied with the order passed by this Court though belatedly, this Court does not find any wilful disobedience on the part of the Respondent.

7. Accordingly, both the Contempt Petitions are closed giving liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs.

gr.

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.

PE/CO/27/02/2016 One CC to Government Pleader, SR.9433/2016 One CC to Mr.S.Vadivelu, Advocate, SR.9297/2016 To The Tahsildar, No.18, Semmancheri Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.