C. Thirugnanam v. Mrs. Vijayalakshmi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.01.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN CONT.P(MD)No.665 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.21310 of 2015 C.Thirugnanam .. Petitioner/ Petitioner Vs.

Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

.. Respondent/ Respondent PRAYER: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying to punish the respondent for the deliberate and willful disobedience of the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.21310 of 2015. Prayer in WP(MD). 21310/ 2015 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a MANDAMUS directing the respondents 2 & 3 to take appropriate action to regulate the parking lot & public park in the Karaikudi Town by putting up display boards in the parking lot and public part controlled by the 3rd respondent so as to make the public aware the amount to be collected by the contractors and issue the receipt containing the all required particulars. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondent : No appearance

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying to punish the respondent since she failed to obey the direction passed by this Court in W.P(MD) No.21310 of 2015.

2.It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has filed W.P(MD)No.21310 of 2015 on the file of this Court, wherein the present respondent has been shown as third respondent and further it is averred in the petition that in W.P(MD)No.21310 of 2015 certain directions have been given to the respondent. But the respondent has not complied with and therefore the present contempt petition has been filed.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced his argument on the basis of averments made in the petition.

4.On the basis of the contention putforth on the side of the petitioner, this Court has perused the operative portion of the order passed in W.P(MD)No.21310 of 2015, wherein it has been simply stated that already the concerned Municipality has taken appropriate steps and therefore the relief sought in the petition cannot be granted and if there is any deviation, the present petitioner has to address the concerned authority. Since there is no specific direction against the respondent, it is needless to say that the present petition is not legally maintainable and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed.

5.In fine, this contempt petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

+1 cc to AJMAL ASSOCIATES, SR.NO:1044 smn SVA/JM/10.02.2017/2P/3C ORDER MADE IN CONT.P(MD)No.665 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.21310 of 2015 05.01.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/