Vimala v. V.Irai Anbu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Contempt Petition No.

of Vimala .. Petitioner Vs.

1. V.Irai Anbu

2. K.Phanindra Reddy

3. M.V.Prakash

4. Theranirajan .. Respondents Prayer: Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for disobeying the orders of this Court dated 05.01.2022 & 27.01.2022 made in Crl.O.P.No.5091 of 2017. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy For Respondents : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Government Advocate - - - - - 1/4

O R D E R

Alleging that the order of this Court dated 05.01.2022 and 27.01.2022, made in Crl.O.P.No.5091 of 2017, has not been complied with, the petitioner has come forward with this contempt petition.

2. This contempt petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the order of this Court to provide necessary eye treatment to the petitioner's son has not been complied with. The Director and Professor of Regional Institute of Opthalmology, Government Ophthalmic Hospital, Egmore, Chennai after examining the victim has filed a report indicating that there has been a grievous injury with sclero corneal tear and iris tissue prolapse. Further the doctor has opined that the victim's left eye ball was grossly deformed and that there is no possibility for any surgical intervention like corneal transplant to restore the integrity of the globe and visual recovery is also not possible. Therefore, we cannot insist upon the doctors to do eye transplantation as they have suggested that it is not possible. Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed.

2/4

3. Earlier, while closing the criminal original petition, this Court has observed that the alleged attack on the petitioner's son is said to have been taken place in violence, further this Court has observed that it is the duty of the State Government to provide necessary treatment to the petitioner's son who is a young boy. Now it is found that further treatment is not possible and eye transplantation is also ruled out. Therefore, this Court is of the view that as the petitioner's son has lost his eye sight, he is entitled to get some compensation. Such view of the matter, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh writ petition claiming compensation for the alleged violence perpetrated by the officials of the State Government. No costs. 03.11.2022 kk 3/4

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

kk Cont.P.No.1582 of 2022 03.11.2022 4/4