M/S. Jags Educational Trust, v. Mrs.Renuga Devi And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

1. M/s. JAGS Educational Trust, Represented by its Authorised Representative, Tmt. Aarthi Duraisamy, Plot Nos. 5 and 6, Ambal Nagar, Pallikarani, Chennai 100.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Mrs.Renuga Devi and another The Joint Commissioner Chennai, HR and CE Department, Region - II Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2.Mrs. Krishnaveni, Executive Officer, Arulmigu Lakshmi Narayana Perumal Vagayara Thirukoil, Pallikarani, Chennai 600 100. Having office at A/m Adhipureeswarar Thirukoil, Pallikaranai, Chennai - 600 100.

Contemnor(s) PRAYER To take cognizance of the wilful and wanton disobedience of the order dated 29.05.2025 in W.P.No. 19432 of 2025 and initiate contempt proceedings and impose cost against the Respondents.

For Contemnor(s):

Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, Spl.

Government Pleader (HR And

CE) Takes Notice For Respondents

ORDER

This Contempt Petition has been filed to take cognizance of the wilful and wanton disobedience of the order dated 29.05.2025 in W.P. No. 19432 of 2025 and initiate contempt proceedings and impose cost against the Respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has directed the respondent to conduct an enquiry and settle the disputes between the parties within a period of six weeks and permitted to use the subject land for sports activities in accordance with the lease deed but the respondent Authority has failed to comply with the order of this Court. Hence, he prays to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent herein and to take cognizance of the wilful and wanton disobedience of the order dated 29.05.2025 in W.P. No. 19432 of 2025

3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has conducted enquiry on 01.08.2025 by giving fair opportunity to the petitioner. During enquiry, the petitioner has appeared and submitted their contentions. On hearing both sides, respondent passed an order by holding that the petitioner failed to provide proper explanation regarding contravention of the terms of the lease deed and deviations from the specifications stipulated in the sanctioned estimate.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that as on date, lease deed has not been terminated. Further, the order of the Joint Commissioner is challenged before this Court in W.P No. 37647 of 2025 which is pending. However, as directed by this Court, the Joint Commissioner has conducted enquiry.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not permitted the petitioner to use the leased premises to put up a temporary structure for Tennis Court and contend that they are paying rent for the entire extent ( 45,000 square ft.) for a sum of Rs.2,25,785/- per month without fail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is paying rent for entire extent but they were permitted to use only for limited extent.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent replied that still the petitioner is not inclined to remove the Iron pillar erected on the ground without which land cannot be used for the sports purpose to that effect, he produced the photographs.

7. Heard both sides.

8.

A perusal of photographs, shows that Iron Pillars as well as stone pillars erected on the ground. So, it could not be used for play ground. Further, the respondent has conducted enquiry as directed by this Court. Hence, nothing survives in this contempt petition. The petitioner is directed to work out his remedy in the pending writ petition. Accordingly, this Contempt petition is closed. Pending petition, if any, is/are closed. 10-10-2025 pbl Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

pbl CONT P No. 2695 of 10-10-2025