A. Rani v. K. Palanisamy

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.03.2016 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Contempt Petition (MD) No.228 of 2016 A.Rani ...

Petitioner Vs.

K.Palanisamy, The District Revenue Officer, Collector's Office, Namakkal District.

... Respondent Petition filed Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order dated 10.09.2013 made in W.P.(MD)No.1630 of 2013.

Prayer in WP(MD)No.1630/2013 :

Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to furnish all the documents particularly files by way of Xerox copy or permitting the petitioner to peruse the same and thereafter proceed in accordance with law in respect of the charge memo issued by the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.25269/2010/A2 dated 06.12.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Murugan, Government Advocate.

ORDER

The order of this Court dated 10.09.2013 was to furnish copies of the documents or at least to permit the petitioner to peruse the documents which are going to be used against him during the enquiry. After perusal of the same, the enquiry officer shall proceed with the enquiry. As the copies were not furnished to the petitioner as directed by this Court, the present contempt petition has been filed. 2.When the matter came up for hearing on 14.03.2016, the Tahsildar and Assistant were present with files. As the files are voluminous, it was agreed by both the parties to peruse the same sitting in the Court premises. Accordingly, permission was granted for perusal of the documents and to take photocopies of the same. 3.It is reported today that the above said exercise was completed. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that some documents which were not available on that date, are not brought by the respondent.

4.Learned Government Advocate contended that all the records which are available with them were permitted to be perused by the petitioner and certain records are not available with the respondent. He further contends that those documents are only with the custody of the petitioner herself. The said statement is recorded. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.As per the direction of this Court dated 10.09.2013 made in W.P(MD)No.1630 of 2013, all the documents available with the respondent have been allowed to be perused by the petitioner. Therefore, nothing remains to be further adjudicated in this contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(Records) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

To K.Palanisamy, The District Revenue Officer, Collector's Office,Namakkal District.

+1cc to M/S.S.Vijayakumar, Advocate in SR.No.17075 +1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No.17239 Contempt Petition (MD) No.228 of 2016 28.03.2016 sms PA/SK-SKN/SAR I/01.04.2016/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/