Disposed

K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic v. Gnanadesikan IAS

Madras HC1 Jul 2019CONT P/2062/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition filed for non-compliance of 2014 order. Court noted partial compliance by Transport Dept. Closed petition prohibiting future compounding fees, directing suspension or cancellation for violations instead.

What did the court decide?

Closed contempt petition with observation to prohibit compounding fees for future violations and proceed via suspension or cancellation.

K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Vs Gnanadesikan IAS — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.07.2019

¶4

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

Cont. Petition No. 2062 of 2015

¶6

K.R.Ramaswamy alias Traffic Ramaswamy ..Petitioner vs 1.Gnanadesikan,I.A.S. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 09 2.T.Prabakar Rao, I.A.S. Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai – 09. 3.Sathyprata I.A.S. Commissioner, Transport Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 05. 4.George, I.P.S. Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chenai – 07. .. Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 10.06.2014 passed by this Court in Cont.P.No.3 of 2014.

¶8

For Petitioner .. Mr.K.R.Ramaswamy alias Traffic Ramaswamy Party-in-Person For Respondents .. Mr.M.Elumalai Government Advocate

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶13

Alleging that the order dated 10.06.2014 passed in Cont.P.No.3 of 2014 has not been complied with, the present contempt petition has been filed.

¶14

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, in purported compliance of the order passed on 14.06.2019, the status report has been filed by the third respondent, which indicates that upto 01.04.2019, 126 permits have been cancelled. Further, suspension orders were passed in 5017 cases and a huge sum Rs.4 crores and odd amount has also been collected by way of fine.

¶15

Though we find that this is not a complete compliance of the order passed, some steps were indeed taken. In such view of the matter, we close the contempt petition with the observation that henceforth, whenever violation is found, there shall not be any awarding of compounding fee by way of fine. Thus, in tune with the earlier order passed, the offenders are to be proceeded with through the suspension of permit or the cancellation, as the case may be.

¶16

mmi/ssm

¶17

//Certified to be true copy//

¶18

Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.

¶19

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶20

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

Mv/15/07/2019

1.Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 09
2.Secretary, Transport Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 09.
3.Commissioner,
Transport Department,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 05.
4.Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai City,
Vepery, Chenai – 07.

¶25

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

K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic v. Gnanadesikan IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic v. Gnanadesikan 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

R.Parthiban Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Padmavathy Vs the State Represented by

Rajesh Joshwa Vs State by Its

Noorjahan Vs the Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

M.Vijay, Vs the Inspector of Police

Mangavaram Vs the Secretary to Government