Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging violation of a High Court order in W.P.14650 of 2018 regarding disposal and communication of a representation. Court found no dispute on compliance and dismissed the petition immediately.
The contempt petition was closed immediately as there was no dispute regarding compliance with the order.
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: 22.11.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
CONT.P.No.2444 of 2018
S.Williams, .. Petitioner
Vs.
Thiru.Anbu Abraham,
Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai)Ltd,
Pallavan Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
.. Respondent
This Contempt petition is filed under Section 11 of
Contempt Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for
willful disobedience of the order passed by this Hon'ble
Court in W.P.No.14650 of 2018 dated 14.06.2018 as per the
Contempt of Court Act.
For Plaintiff : Mr.D. Veerasekaran
For Defendant : Ms.S.Rajani Ramadass Standing Counsel
ORDER
Mr. D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel on record for
petitioner is before this Court.
2
WP.No.14650 of 2018, relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 9 and 11 and the same read as follows:
'9.In the light of the narrative supra, there shall be a direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the writ petitioner's aforesaid representation dated 23.05.2018, within six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Respondent No.1 shall communicate a copy of order disposing of the representation to the writ petitioner within seven working days from the date of such disposal.' 3. Ms.S.Rajani Ramadass, standing counsel for Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited, was before this Court and learned counsel represented the sole respondent in this contempt petition.
counsel very fairly pointed out that he has disclosed in
the contempt petition itself that the representation of the writ petitioner dated 23.05.2018 has been disposed of on 16.07.2018 by the respondent in the contempt petition,
pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court. It is also fairly submitted that it has been duly communicated to the petitioner in accordance with paragraph 11 of my order.
3
representation vide proceedings dated 16.07.2018, learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that the respondent has not gone into the merits of the matter and has summarily disposed of the representation.
scope is very limited and it is deemed appropriate to leave it open to the petitioner to challenge the order of respondent by way of separate proceedings in a manner known to law.
representation to the writ petitioner having been done within the time frames set out in the order in the writ petition, this contempt petition is closed.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)
gpa/mp
Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.
from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PS/03/12/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent's disposal and communication of the writ petitioner's representation within the stipulated time frames amount to willful disobedience warranting punishment under the Contempt of
S. Williams
Thiru. Anbu Abraham
M. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
