← Library
Madras High CourtCONT P(MD)/962/2016closed

Everest Mariyappa Nadar v. M.Ramakrishnan

2016-08-04Honourable Mr Justice M. Venugopal2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 04.08.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Cont.P.(MD).No.962 of 2016 in W.P.(MD).No.9718 of 2016 Everest Mariyappa Nadar Higher Secondary School rep. By its Secretary Jothi Nagar, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

.. Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.

Mr.M.Ramakrishnan, Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

.. Respondent/Contemnor Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent herein for his deliberate and willful disobedience of the Order of this Honourable Court dated 02.06.2016 in WP.(MD).No.9718/2016 amounting to Contempt of Court under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.

Prayer in WP(MD)No.9718/2016:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the petitioners representation dated 17.03.2016 seeking to re fix the staff fixation for the academic year 2015-2016 towards sanction/deployment of adequate staff to the petitioner school as per the existing norms and students strength within a reasonable time as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : Mr.E.V.N.Siva For respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandham Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. It appears that the respondent/contemnor had passed the order on 10.06.2016 in Na.Ka.No.1551/A3/2015, inter alia stating that the petitioner's petition dated 17.03.2016 was examined and apart from that, the petitioner was informed at the time of deployment, his request would be considered.

3. In the instant case on hand, it cannot be said that the respondent/contemnor had not considered the petition dated 17.03.2016. In fact, after examining the petitioner's petition dated 17.03.2016, the order came to be passed as stated supra. If at all the petitioner has a grievance against the order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the respondent/contemnor, then, it is open to him to assail the correctness of the said order before the competent forum in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law.

4. As such, the contempt petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(W) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To Mr.M.Ramakrishnan, Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

+One cc to M/s.E.V.N.Siva, Advocate, SR.No.41853 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.42209 vs RL/4C/2P/DB/11/8/2016 Cont.P.(MD).No.962 of 2016 in W.P.(MD).No.9718 of 2016 04.08.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/