Rajakumari Koteeswaran v. Dharmendra Pratap Yadav, Ias

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.10.2018 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR Contempt Petition No.1065 of 2017 and Sub-Application (OS).Nos.283/2017 & 111/2018 Mrs.Rajakumari Koteeswaran ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Thiru.Dharmendra Pratap Yadav, IAS, Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.Thiru.Sundararajan, Executive Engineer RDC, Corporation of Chennai, Regional Office-Central, 2nd Cross Street (East), Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030.

3.P.Mani, S/o.Parthasarathy, Plot No.52C, Kosi Mani Street, Padmanabha Nagar, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094.

... Respondents Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, to punish the respondents for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order25.01.2017 in W.P.No.42308 of 2016 passed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Ms.Rajakumari Kotteeswaran For Respondents : Mr.Mr.S.N.Parthasarathy, GA (For R1) Mr.K.Soundararajan, For R2 Mr.L.Chandrakumar, For R3

ORDER

This Court on 25.01.2017 in W.P.No.42308 of 2016 has passed the following order:- "When the lawyers fight, this is the result! An unending battle between two parties, who happen to be the lawyers.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he had advised the petitioner to comply with the impugned order and a period of three months' time may be granted to comply with the same.

3.We accede to the request and grant three months' time to comply with the impugned order.

4.The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid direction, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Consequently, W.M.P.No.36214 of 2016 is also dismissed."

2.The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the said order dated

25.01.2017 passed by this Court.

3.Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel on either side have brought to the notice of this court that on the same issue in W.P.No.22563 of 2017 which was filed by the 3rd respondent herein, the another Division Bench of this Court has passed an order on 04.09.2017 directing both the parties to maintain status quo. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:- "11.Though the petitioner prays for larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner as well as the seventh respondent, who are lawyers, directs the first respondent to entertain the review petition as well as the stay petition dated 05.06.2017 filed before it, if the papers are otherwise in order and after putting the petitioner and the seventh respondent on notice, shall dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken,

to the petitioner as well as the seventh respondent and till such time, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as per the interim order dated 22.08.2017 passed by this Court."

4.In view of the above order, We are of the opinion that there is no need to keep this contempt petition pending.

Hence, the contempt petition is closed.

Consequently, connected Sub-Applications are closed. SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) SSV //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.

SPN/11/10/2018