Disposed

P.Nagarajam v. Rajeev Ranjan IAS

Madras HC3 Jan 2017CONT P/878/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt petition challenging delayed compliance with a prior writ order mandating completion of highway construction. The court noted the delay but observed that work had commenced with a new completion date of 18.05.2017. It directed authorities to adhere to the revised schedule.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to adhere to the revised schedule for completion of work by 18.05.2017.

P.Nagarajam Vs Rajeev Ranjan IAS — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.01.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
Contempt Petition No.878 of 2015
P.Nagarajan .. Petitioner
-vs-
Mr.Rajeev Ranjan, I.A.S.,
Secretary to Government,
Highways Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009. .. Respondent
Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for willful
disobedience of the order made in W.P.No.22516 of 2006
dated 23.01.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gandhi, Sr. Counsel
for Mr.R.G.Narendhiran
For Respondent : Mr.C.Manishankar
Addl. Adv. General, assisted
by Mr.M.K.Subramanian, G.P.
* * * * *

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ There is undoubtedly delay as per the revised schedule mentioned in para 11 of the affidavit dated 26.11.2015, as

¶9

¶10

it is now stated before us that the contract has been awarded and the work has commenced and the estimated date of completion is 18.05.2017. In fact, as per the earlier schedule, which was not accepted by the Court, the date of completion was 15.10.2017.

¶11

2.Learned Additional Advocate General states that endeavour will be made to advance the date of completion as much as possible.

¶12

3.The time schedule now stated before us be adhered to and we hope the respondents will not give a cause for us to revive the petition and take a most stringent view of the matter.

¶13

sra

¶14

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶15

Ss/CO/12/01/2017

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

¶19

The Secretary to Government, Highways Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶20

One CC to M/s.R.G.Narendhiran,Advocate, Sr.No.78

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

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

P.Nagarajam v. Rajeev Ranjan IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Nagarajam v. Rajeev Ranjan IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Ramadoss, Vs The District Collector

Mrs. v.Syed Ali Fathima, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M/s.Tgi Packaging Private Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Arulmighu Kottaimariamman Vs The Commissioner

M.Govindaswamy, Vs the District Collector

M.Sakthivel, Vs the District Collector