A.O.Joseph v. Lavanya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and Sub Application Nos.707 & 708 of 2023 and 265 of 2026 A.O.Joseph S/o.Ouseph, No.15, V.G.P.Pushpa Nagar, Medavakkam, Chennai - 601 302.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. Mrs.Lavanya St.Thomas Mount Panchayat Union, Commissioner, Chittlapakkam, Chennai - 600 064.
2. Dr.S.Kanchana Mala, Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 (Suo motu impleaded as 2nd Respondent as per the Order of the Honble Court made in Cont.P.No.1626/2023, dated 23.02.2026) ..Contemnor(s) To punish the respondent for not obeying the order dated 07.07.2022 made in W.P.No.24001 of 2007.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.G.Ethirajulu For Contemnor(s):
Mr.Ramanlal Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Selvaraj Mr.M.Venkat Raghavan BDO, Chitlapakam M/s.V.Lavanya Former BDO, Chitlapakam
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by K.Kumaresh Babu J.) The present contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondent for not obeying the order dated 07.07.2022 made in W.P.No.24001 of 2007.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
3. Noting that there has been a violation of the building permission granted, directions were issued by this Court for taking appropriate action. Complaining that no action had been initiated, the present contempt petition has been filed. Even during the contempt proceedings, it had been noted that the order was not complied with.
4. By order dated 23.02.2026, a specific direction was issued to the respondents to lock and seal the premises, except the portion occupied by Indian Bank, as it would cause inconvenience to the public.
5. Today, when the matter is taken up, photographs have been placed before this Court indicating that the portion, other than the one occupied by Indian Bank, has been locked and sealed by the authorities. A communication of the Additional Secretary (Technical), who dealt with the revision filed by the Indian Bank, has also been placed on record, indicating that a revision has been filed by Indian Bank and that, in view of the inconvenience that would have been caused to the public, interim orders had been passed. The same is taken on record. There shall be a direction to dispose of the revision within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. A statement has also been made by the learned counsel appearing for Indian Bank, though he is not a party to the proceedings, that they would vacate the premises within a period of five months.
7. Recording the same, we do not propose to take any further action in the present contempt petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner, if further action pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the Statute is not complied with.
8. The contemnor / Mrs.Lavanya was also present before this Court. In view of her appearance, the non-bailable warrant stands recalled.
9. The respondent is directed to comply with the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the enactment, with the disposal of the revision pending before the Additional Secretary (Technical).
10. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands closed. No costs. Connected Sub Applications are also closed. The petitioner also seeks liberty to participate in the proceedings pending before the Additional Secretary. If any such application is filed, the same shall be entertained on merits and in accordance with law.
(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.) 27-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order kak
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
kak 27-02-2026