Dismissed

S.Parimala, v. Dharmendra Pratap Yadav, Ias.

Madras HC4 Nov 2016CONT P/2465/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition for wilful disobedience of an order in W.P.No.1695 of 2014 regarding land reclassification, the Court granted the second respondent eight weeks to consider the application submitted in proper format and pass orders.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to consider the application in proper format and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

S.Parimala, Vs Dharmendra Pratap Yadav, Ias. — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.11.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Contempt Petition No.2465 of 2016

¶7

S.Parimala ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Thiru Dharmendra Pratap Yadav, I.A.S.,
Commissioner & Director of Town & Country Planning,
(Full Add. Charge), Fourth Floor, Chengalvarayan
Building,
807, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2.Thiru.M.Mathimaran,
Deputy Director, Town & Country Planning Department,
Salem Region, 6, Sannathi Street,
Subramani Nagar, Salem-636 005.
3.Thiru.K.Balasubramanian,
Municipal Commissioner,
Dharapuram Municipality,
Dharapuram-636 656. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under section 11 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, to punish the respondent for the wilful
disobedience of the orders of this Court made in
W.P.No.1695 of 2014, dated 01.03.2016.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy

¶9

For Respondents: M/s.Vasudha Thiagarajan Additional Government Pleader for R1 &R2 Mr.P.Srinivas for R3

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and M/s.Vasudha Thiagarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

¶14

This contempt petition has been filed for the wilful disobedience of the order and direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.1695 of 2014, dated 01.03.2016. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:-

¶15

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to submit an application for reclassification of land in proper format through proper channel along with a copy of this order and if the application is submitted, the authorities, namely, the respondents 2 and 3 shall prepare an appropriate report and forward the same to the first respondent, who shall consider the said application in accordance with law. The above direction shall be complied with, within a period of four months from the date of submission of the application. Along with the fresh representation, the petitioners shall also enclose a copy of the earlier representation, dated 12.09.2013. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 are closed."

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

It appears that the petitioners, after the disposal of the writ petition, have given a representation on 28.03.2016 along with a copy of the order in the Writ Petition. The said representation was forwarded to the second respondent by the third respondent. However, the second respondent returned the same stating that the petitioners should apply in the proper format. The petitioners were informed and

¶19

they have also applied in a proper format, thereafter, which has been forwarded to the second respondent.

¶20

for the second respondent would submit that eight weeks time may be granted to the second respondent to consider the Application and to pass appropriate resolution. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of, by directing the second respondent to consider the application

¶21

and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

r n s

¶23

SD/ JOINT REGISTRAR(OS)

¶24

//Certified to be true copy//

¶25

Dated at Madras this the day of 2016.

¶26

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

¶27

CO/16/11/2016

¶28

¶29

One CC to Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate, SR.14237/2016

¶30

Thiru Dharmendra Pratap Yadav, I.A.S., Commissioner & Director of Town & Country Planning, (Full Add. Charge), Fourth Floor, Chengalvarayan Building,

¶31

807, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶32

Thiru.M.Mathimaran,

¶33

Deputy Director, Town & Country Planning Department, Salem Region, 6, Sannathi Street, Subramani Nagar, Salem-636 005.

¶34

Thiru.K.Balasubramanian, Municipal Commissioner, Dharapuram Municipality, Dharapuram-636 656.

¶35

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

S.Parimala, v. Dharmendra Pratap Yadav, Ias.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Parimala, v. Dharmendra Pratap Yadav, Ias.

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

Medi Pharma Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Ct

Madura Tarpaulin Mfg. Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Tvl.G.P.Chemicals Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Mr.v.S.Rajendran Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Tvl.R.Rama Rao Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Mr.G.Suresh Vs The Managing Director