S.Kandhaperumal, v. Mr. C.Ravi, And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.02.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY S.Kandhaperumal .. Petitioner

Versus

1. C.Ravi, The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Nagapattinam Electricity System, Nagapattinam District.

2. P.Anbarasan, The Executive Officer, Sri Arulmigu Veerateswarar Thiru Kovil Temple, Vazhuvur, Mayiladuthurai District.

.. Respondents Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.30635 of 2023, dated 30.10.2023 as per the Contempt of Court Act.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivanandam For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) 1/5

ORDER

This Contempt Petition is filed complaining the willful disobedience of the order, dated 30.10.2023 made in W.P.No.30635 of 2023. By the said order, the respondents are directed to dispose of the representations, dated 18.05.2023 and 12.06.2023 made by the petitioner and while so, they were also directed to give personal hearing to the petitioner.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the order, the petitioner was directed to come for hearing on 12.06.2024 and when the petitioner went for the hearing and tried to submit representations and documents, they never accepted the representation or the documents that were submitted by him and proceeded to pass order. Hence, this Contempt Petition is filed.

3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the order was directed to dispose of the representations. Now, by the order, dated 11.01.2025, final orders were passed disposing of the representations as directed by this Court. A personal hearing was granted 2/5

on 12.06.2024, on which, the petitioner appeared in person and also signed a statement and handed over some of the documents.

4. In reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner specifically denies that the signature found in the said statement is not that of the petitioner and submits that it is based on the forged signature, such a claim is made by the respondents.

5. The order is directing to pass final orders after granting a personal hearing to the petitioner. Final orders were passed. As far as the personal hearing is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that even though he went for the hearing, the alleged statement is not signed by him. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner only signed the statement. In view thereof, there is a compliance of the directions as issued in the Writ Petition order. If the petitioner submits that it is a case of forgery, then, it is for him to take up the matter further by getting the signatures compared or file such a complaint as may be permissible under law.

3/5

6. With the liberty to the petitioner being kept open to challenge the impugned order in the manner known to law, this Contempt Petition is closed.

24.02.2025 : no grs 4/5

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J., grs 24.02.2025 5/5