Dismissed

P.Senthil Kumar v. Dhanalakshmi

Madras HC10 Jun 2014CONT P/658/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a contempt petition filed against the Commissioner of Satyamangalam Municipality for alleged wilful disobedience of an earlier order requiring inspection and licensing. The court found no evidence of wilful disobedience as appropriate actions had been taken and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was closed finding no wilful disobedience of the impugned order dated 07.11.2012.

P.Senthil Kumar Vs Dhanalakshmi — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 10.06.2014

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Honourable Mr.SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶6

The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH

¶7

Contempt Petition No.658 of 2014

¶8

P.Senthil Kumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
Mrs.Dhanalakshmi,
The Commissioner,
Satyamangalam Municipality,
Satyamangalam, Erode District. .. Respondent
Petition under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act,
70/71 to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying the
order of this Court dated 07.11.2012 made in W.P.No.24930
of 2012 and to deal with them in accordance with law.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kumaresh Babu For respondent : Mr.P.Srinivas

¶10

ORDER

¶11

In the writ petition in W.P.No.24930 of 2012 filed by the petitioner, this Court, by an order dated 07.11.2012,

¶12

has passed the following order.

¶13

"4. The learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the instructions received, submits that the fourth respondent has already

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issued notices to respondents 9 to 17 under

¶15

¶16

the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu

¶17

Public Health Act. We, therefore, direct the fourth respondent to inspect the industries of respondents 9 to 17, along with the 8th respondent, and pass

¶18

appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondents 9 to

¶19

1. with the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs."

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by this Court has not

¶21

been complied with. The Industries are running without consent. Licences have been issued after the order passed by this Court.

¶22

However, the learned counsel appearing for

¶23

the respondent submitted that the industries, which are situated in the residential zone have been closed. The other industries that were situated in

¶24

the mixed residential zone and commercial zone were alone given licences with the maximum installed power of 5 HP. For such industries, no consent is required from the Tamil

¶25

Nadu Pollution Control Board. Therefore, the contempt https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition has to be closed.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

Admittedly, the exercise of inspection of the industries of respondents 9 to 17 in the writ petition along with the eighth respondent therein was done and appropriate action has been taken. If the petitioner is of the view that the licences have been given wrongly and for such industries, a consent is required, then it is well open to him to work out the remedy in the manner known to law. On the facts of the case, we do not find any wilfull disobedience in the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24930 of 2012 dated 07.11.2012. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. raa SD/DEPUTY REGISTRAR(OS) //Certified to be true copy//

¶29

Dated at Madras this the day of 2014.

¶30

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶31

SS/CO/18/09/2014

¶32

One CC to Mr.K.Kumaresh Babu, Advocate, SR.5883 One CC to Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate, SR.5683

¶33

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

P.Senthil Kumar v. Dhanalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Senthil Kumar v. Dhanalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Tarulata M.Rupani Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

D.R.Duraiarasu Vs the District Collector

Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam, Vs the Chief Election

B.Chowdri Vs K.Chellamuthu IAS

M/S. Jai Vishnu Clothing, Vs the Union of India

Kuppam Podu Nala Mandram Vs the Home Secretary