G.K.Sampath v. Mr.A.M.Selvam
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Feb 2008
- Bench
- M JAICHANDREN
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ss. 10, 12
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. The connected W.P.M.P. is closed. "
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Contempt Petition No.697 of 2004 G.K.Sampath .. Petitioner vs. Mr.A.M.Selvam The Municipal Commissioner Ambattur Municipality Ambattur, Chennai- 600 053 .. Respondent The Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 10 & 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71, to punish the contemnors for acts of contempt committed by him in disobeying the order of this Court in W.P.No.25332 of 2003 dated 10.9.2003. For petitioner : Mr.Zaffarullah Khan For respondent : Mr.I.Paranthaman Government Advocate
O R D E R The above contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court, dated 10.9.2003, made in W.P.No.25316 of 2003.
The petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.25316 of 2003, praying for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the walls comprised in S.No.213/2 on the eastern side of the petitioner's plot No.107 in pursuance of the notice issued by the first respondent, dated 8.8.2003.
The order of this Court, dated 10.9.2003, reads as follows: "Petitioner filed the above writ petition for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the walls comprised in S.No.213/2 on the eastern side of the petitioner's plot No.107 in pursuance of the notice issued by the first respondent dated 8.8.2003.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though notice was issued on 8.8.2003, the respondents are not taking effective steps to enforce the said notice.
3. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, if respondents 1 and 2 are not prevented by any order of Court to implement the said notice, they are directed to implement the notice dated 8.8.2003 after giving opportunity to the fourth respondent and complete the same within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Operative part
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. The connected W.P.M.P. is closed. "
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that in spite of the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 10.9.2003, the respondent had not complied with the same.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that in pursuance of the order of this Court, dated 10.9.2003 made in W.P.No.25316 of 2003, a reply had been sent vide letter Na.Ka.No.11088/03/F2; dated 11.12.2003.
It is further stated that the fourth respondent in the writ petition, namely, Arun Agarwal had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.383 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur and an interim order of status quo had been granted by the said Court by its order, dated 13.11.2003 in I.A.No.1822 of 2003 in O.S.No.383 of 2003.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent had not committed M.JAICHANDREN J., contempt of Court as alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the contempt petition stands closed. Consequently, connected sub Application No.378 of 2007 is closed. No costs.
14.2.2008 INDEX : YES/NO INTERNET : YES/NO To: Mr.A.M.Selvam The Municipal Commissioner Ambattur Municipality Ambattur, Chennai- 600 053 Cont.P.No.697 of 2004
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — ss. 10, 12.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 14 Feb 2008. The bench was M JAICHANDREN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.