S.K.Veluprabakaran v. M.Rajendran Ias.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA Contempt Petition No. 2360 of 2018 1.S.K.Veluprabakaran, S/o.Kaveri Devar, No.8, 2nd Cross Street, Ganapathipuram, East Tambaram, Chennai-59.
2.R.Sathyanathan S/o.O.V.Ramamurthy, No.283 Mullai Nagar, West Tambaram, Chennai 45
...Petitioners
Vs.
1. Dr.M.Rajendran,I.A.S.
The Commissioner Tamil Nadu State Cooperative Election Commission, No.273, Kamadhenu Supermarket, Anna Salai, Chennai
2. Moovarasan The District Election Officer/ Deputy Registrar of Co-operatives, No.826, Alagesan Nagar Main Road, Opp Government Hospital, Chengalpattu.
3. Ravichandran The Returning Officer, JJ-46, Tambaram Society Urban Bank Ltd, West Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045
...Respondents
Prayer: Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for disobeying the order passed in W.A.No. 7526 of 2018 dated 03.08.2018.
For Appellant :
Mr.R.Mohana Raja For Respondents :
Mr.M.S.Palanisamy for R1 Mr.L.P. Shanmugha Sundaram Special Government Pleader for R2 and R3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) Alleging that the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 7526 of 2018, etc. batch, dated 03.08.2018, has not been complied with, the present contempt petition has been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that a complaint was given on 05.06.2018 to the first respondent/contemnor, namely, the Tamil Nadu State Cooperative Election Commission, however, before the said complaint is taken up on file and adjudicated upon by the Committee, the first respondent proceeded further with the election and declined the request of the petitioner.
3. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second and third respondents/contemnors submitted that
there is no material to hold that such a complaint was given. It is further submitted that in a writ petition filed by similarly placed persons against the same society, W.P. No. 12033 of 2018 etc, batch, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order dated 09.05.2018 giving liberty to raise the dispute if so aggrieved by the election. Thus, learned Single Judge permitted the Commission to proceed with the election.
4. We do not find any wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. The petitioner was not a party to the order passed by the Division Bench. Though the order of the Division Bench is by way of general direction, in the absence of any material to hold that such a complaint has already been given and thereafter taken note of by the Committee, which is also not before us, we are not in a position to call the respondents for any wilful disobedience of the order passed. Furthermore, the election has already been declared. The third parties interest has crept in. Learned Single Judge of this Court has already passed an order under similar circumstances giving liberty to the writ petitioners therein to raise the dispute.
5. In such view of the matter, we do not find any wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents/contemnors. However, while closing this contempt petition, we are giving liberty to the petitioner
to raise the dispute afresh before the appropriate authority within a period of two weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when the such dispute is raised, the same would be adjudicated on merits and in accordance with law without rejecting the same on the ground of limitation.
In view of the above, this contempt petition stands closed.
SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) ssm //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2019. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
Sm/09/05/2019