P.Chandran v. R.Sivakumar
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court disposed of a contempt petition filed against the second respondent for alleged wilful disobedience of a prior order requiring consideration of a representation. The Court observed that the matter ceased to be a case of contempt once the representation was disposed of by the respondent.
What did the court decide?
Contempt petition closed; bailable warrant recalled; petitioner may challenge the respondent's order.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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: 16.06.2017
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.S.RAMESH
Contp.No.257 of 2017
&
Sub appln. No.154 of 2017
P.Chandran .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.R.Sivakumar,
Block Development Officer (Panchayat),
Panchayat Union,
Gudalur, Niligiris.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
Chennai.
(* 2 nd Respondent is impleaded as per order dt.07/06/2017
made in Sub. Application No.154/17 in Cont.P.No.257/17)
.. Respondent
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the Respondent for his
wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated
07.11.2016 made in W.P.No.25410 of 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Sudalaiyandi
For Respondent : Mr.Rajaperumal
Additional Government Pleader
2
O R D E R
By an order dated 07.11.2016 in W.P.No.25410 of 2013, this Court had permitted the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the second respondent and on receipt of such representation, the second respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation on its own merits and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present contempt petition deserves to be closed after the responsible authority disposed of the petitioner's representation.
Whether the issuance of the bailable warrant constituted wilful disobedience amounting to contempt.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
P.Chandran
- respondent
Mr.R.Sivakumar
- respondent
The Director, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court