The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging the respondent failed to act within four weeks of a court direction. The court found the petitioner failed to make out any case for contempt and dismissed the application without further adjudication.
No further adjudication in the contempt application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.10.2017
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Contempt Petition No.1122 of 2017 K.Suthandira Mohan ... Petitioner Vs. Mr.Ramasamy, Director of Cooperative Audit, Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board Building, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 5. (now shifted to O/o. Accountant General, Nandanam, Anna Salai, Chennai – 35.) ...Respondent
Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for having willfully disobeyed the order of this Court made in W.P.No.27015 of 2013 dated 04.05.2017 under the provisions of contempt of Courts Act.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.E.Badrinathan For Respondents : Mr.K.Dhananjayan Special Government Pleader
2
O R D E R
The contempt application has been moved against the order
passed by this Court on 04.05.2017 in W.P.No.27015 of 2013. Considering
the facts and circumstances placed before this Court, this Court passed an order as under:
“ In view of the judgments and on facts, the impugned order is infirm. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the first respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.35260/2011/A.Pa.A.1 is quashed. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner in the light of the exemptions granted by the Government and in the light of the judgments rendered by this Court as cited supra and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
reconsider the case of the writ petitioner in the light of the exemption
granted by the Government within a period of four weeks, no order has
3
been passed in time by the 1st respondent, in response to the direction issued by this Court on 04.05.2017. Accordingly, the petitioner moved this contempt application. Notice was ordered to the respondent and the Director of Cooperative Audit added his presence before this Court on 03.10.2017. The file relating to the writ petition has been produced and on perusal of the same, it is found that the Director of Cooperative Audit
has submitted a proposal to the Government in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.17776/2016/m g m 1 dated 27.06.2017. 3. The learned Special Government Pleader also made a submission that Director, Cooperative Audit has sent a proposal in favour of the writ petitioner for granting exemption, so as to extend the service benefits to the petitioner.
rejection issued by the Government states that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Government and the order of rejection was passed
4
in Letter No.64418/CA/2014 dated 25.06.2015. The letter dated 25.06.2015 states that the petitioner has not completed the required Departmental test within a period of five years and therefore, he was not eligible for further promotion. Further, it is stated that there is no
provision under the rules for granting exemption in favour of the petitioner. In all these grounds, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Government on 25.06.2015 and same reply has been reiterated by the Government in letter dated 18.08.2017, issued pursuant to order
passed by this Court in WP.No.27015 of 2013 dated 04.05.2017.
the petitioner. However, this Court is of the view that the Government
has not been impleaded as party/respondent in this writ petition and the
Director alone has been impleaded as respondent. This Court has also issued direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the case and the 1st respondent duly considered the case and sent a proposal to the Government. The Government also responded without any further delay by reiterating the earlier rejection order passed by the Government on
5
26.05.2015. Thus, the 1st respondent has not committed any contempt
and further the proposal in favour of the petitioner was sent to the Government on 27.06.2016 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed in the writ petition.
6
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J
kak
To
Mr.Ramasamy,
Director of Cooperative Audit,
Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board Building,
Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai – 5.
(now shifted to
O/o. Accountant General,
Nandanam, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 35.)
Contempt Petition No.1122 of 2017
03.10.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent committed contempt by failing to pass an order within the time limit of the direction given in the underlying writ petition.
Whether the petitioner established a case for contempt against the respondent regarding the rejection of the exemption proposal.
K. Suthandira Mohan
Mr. Ramasamy
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
