Henry Thiagaraj v. Dr.M.Azariah

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Contempt Petition No.756 of 2004 Henry Thiagaraj Managing Trustee Dalit Liberation Education Trust No.86, First Avenue Indra Nagar, Adayar Chennai-20 .. Petitioner vs.

1. Dr.M.Azariah No.8/9, V.P.Colony, 2nd Cross Street Ayanavaram, Chennai-23

2. Mrs.Y.D.Darisini No.3, Muthu Solai Street Taylors Road, Chennai-10

3. Dr.Heleena Rajkumari No.43, Mothilal Street Tiruvallur-602 001 .. Respondents The Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 10 & 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71, to punish the respondents 1 to 3 for contempt of Court since they have disobeyed the order, dated 15.7.2004, made in O.A.No.532 of 2004 in C.S.No.875 of 2002. For petitioner : Mr.R.Thiagarajan For respondents : Mr.A.R.Nixon for the first respondent Mr.P.Mani for the second and third respondents O R D E R This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for contempt of Court for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court, dated 15.7.2004, made in O.A.No.532 of 2004, in C.S.No.875 of 2002.

2. It has been stated that Sundaravarthan and Velu Annamalai had filed a Civil Suit before this Court in C.S.No.875 of 2002, praying for the removal of the first respondent from the office of Trustee of Dalit Liberation Education Trust. Since the respondents had tried to convene the Trust Board Meeting, illegally, the petitioner, who is the first defendant in the civil suit, had filed an Original Application in O.A.No.532 of 2004, in C.S.No.875 of 2002, praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from convening any meeting, on 3.7.2004 or on any future date.

3. On 15.7.2004, this Court had passed an order in O.A.No.532 of 2004, which is as follows:- "It is directed that both sides shall not indulge in any activities, which will be prejudicial to the interest of the Trust. Both sides should not indulge in any banking operations with regard to Trust Fund, until disposal of the interim Applications."

4. It has been further stated that the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court by conducting meetings, on 27.7.2004 and 31.7.2004 and by taking decisions pertaining to important matters, which are prejudicial to the interest of the Trust. The respondents had also visited Delta Training Campus, on 31.7.2004, and had conducted an illegal meeting and interfered in the administration of the Trust by taking photographs and by taking away certain records of the Trust, creating confusion among the public and the staff.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it has been stated that he is the Chairman of Dalit Liberation Education Trust. The Civil Suit in C.S.No.875 of 2002, had been filed by the plaintiff for removing the first respondent from the office of the Chairman of Dalit Liberation Education Trust. No interim order had been passed against the first respondent or against the other trustees restraining them from functioning as the Board of Trustees. The plaintiff in the suit is an henchman of the Ex-Managing Trustee, who had been removed from the Managing Trusteeship, based on the resolution of the Board of Trustees.

6. It has been stated that the application filed praying for an order of injunction restraining the Board of Trustees from convening the Board Meeting is beyond the scope of the suit. The relief sought for in the application filed in the suit is in no way connected with the cause of action in the suit. The respondents had not indulged in any activity prejudicial to the interest of the Trust. No particulars had been given in the affidavit as to how the trustee had prejudiced the interest of the Trust. There is no order restraining the respondents from entering the premises of the Dalit Liberation Education Trust. No contempt had been committed by conducting the meeting, on 27.7.2004, as no resolution was passed disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 15.7.2004. The alleged meeting, on 31.7.2004, was not an official, mandatory or regular meeting.

7. It has been stated that the meeting of the Board of Trustees conducted, on 27.7.2004, was a mandatory, ordinary meeting of the Dalit Liberation Education Trust Board of Trustees, as per Rule 10, Clause 1, of the Deed of Trust. There was no legal impediment preventing the meeting held on 3.7.2004, which was held as per the rules of the Deed of Trust. Since the resolution passed, on 27.7.2004, was to request the Trustees to visit the Delta Youth Training Centre Campus at Kadalure Village in East Coast Road, on 31.7.2004, along with the Newly Elected Managing Trustee, the Trustees had visited the Delta Youth Training Centre, on 31.7.2004. No records of the Trust had been taken away from the Delta School of Nursing, on 31.7.2004. No particulars of the records, allegedly taken away by the respondents, were disclosed in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. The respondents have not committed any unauthorised or illegal activity, alleged to be prejudicial to the interest of the Trust. The first respondent had also tendered his unconditional apology, if for some reason it is found by this Court that the first respondent had committed contempt of Court.

8. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it has been stated that she had never violated the order passed by this Court. However, if it is found that for some reasons the second respondent had committed contempt of Court, this Court may be pleased to condone the same, as it was unintentional and as she has tendered her unconditional apology.

9. It has also been submitted that no contempt has been committed by conducting the meeting, on 27.7.2004, as no resolution was passed in disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 15.7.2004. The meeting, on 31.7.2004, was not an official, mandatory or regular meeting.

10. Since there was no order passed by this Court prohibiting the respondents from visiting the Delta Youth Training Centre Campus at Kadalure Village, such an act would not amount to contempt of Court. Since no records of the Trust had been taken away from the Delta School of Nursing, on 31.7.2004, as alleged by the petitioner, no contempt would arise on that score. It is only the petitioner who has committed contempt of the order by operating the Bank Account causing prejudice to the interest of the Trust.

11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, similar submissions had been made in the affidavit filed by the first and second respondents.

12. On hearing the contentions of the counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondents for contempt of Court, as alleged in the contempt petition. From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is not clear as to how the respondents had committed acts or omissions causing prejudice to the interests of the Trust. No particulars have been produced to support the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the respondents have committed contempt of Court by wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, dated 15.7.2004, made in O.A.No.532 of 2004 in C.S.No.875 of 2002. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Sub Application No.275 of 2004 is also dismissed. Consequently, connected Sub Application No.275 of 2004 is also dismissed. No costs.