Anitha Alagesan, v. Mr. S.Sivarasu, I.A.S., And 2 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.11.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR Anitha Alagesan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.S.Sivarasu, I.A.S., The Director of Municipal Administration, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 004.

2.Dr.T.Prabhushankar, I.A.S., The Distirct Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur - 602 001.

3.N.Arul, The Commissioner, Thiruninravur Municipality, Thiruvallur District - 602 024.

... Respondent PRAYER: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, praying to punish the respondents herein for willful disobedience and non-compliance of the orders of this Court made in 1/6

W.P.No.21468 of 2023, dated 23.08.2023 under the Provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

For Petitioners : M/s.A.Devanathan For Respondents : Dr.T.Seenivasan Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has produced the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 25.11.2024, wherein he has stated that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and report has been prepared for construction of storm water drain and the same has been submitted before the Government for sanction of necessary funds.

2. It is also stated by the 3rd respondent, the entire project will be completed within a period of three weeks. The said statement made by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent is recorded. 2/6

3. Recording the said statement, this Contempt Petition is closed.

26.11.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No 3/6

26.11.2024 4/6

The matter has been listed under the caption "for being mentioned" at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents by referring to the written instructions filed by 3rd respondent dated 25.11.2024 submits that representation made by him that the entire project would be completed within a period of three years has been wrongly incorporated in the order as three weeks.

3. It is seen from the written instruction produced before Court by the respondents counsel that he was instructed to inform the Court that entire project would be completed within three years. Therefore, the word expression "three weeks" mentioned paragraph No.2 shall be substituted as "three years".

4. Registry is directed to issue fresh order copy. 05.02.2025 5/6

05.02.2025 6/6