The Court closed the contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, noting that the respondent had complied with the prior order despite alleged falsehoods in the affidavit, and dismissing a subsequent writ petition by the same petitioner as unnecessary.
Contempt petition closed with no costs awarded.
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 : 11.01.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
Contempt Petition No.415 of 2017 P.Selvaraj ... Petitioner -vs1. K.Phanindra Reddy, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (M.E.1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. G.Prakash, I.A.S., Director of Municipal Administration, Ezhilagam 6th Floor, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3. P.Narayanan, Commissioner, Palladam Municipality, Palladam, Tiruppur District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for having willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15669 of 2016 dated 27.04.2016. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Gunasekaran, For Mr.M.N.Kathir For RR1 & 2 : Mr.M.Elumalai, Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.P.Rajkumar, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Standing Counsel
2
ORDER
Heard Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned counsel representing
Mr.M.N.Kathir, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2; and Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.
2.Though the petitioner and the third respondent would contend that the affidavit filed by the first respondent in the contempt petition is a false affidavit, the question of adjudicating the same in this contempt petition does not arise for the simple reason that an order already has been passed in compliance with the direction issued by this Court. From the argument, it can be seen
that there is something more than what meets the eye. Another writ petition filed by the same petitioner in W.P.No.7037 of 2017 has also been dismissed, vide order dated 19.03.2018.
3
3.Thus, for the above reasons, this contempt petition is closed. No costs.
SD/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)
abr
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
from 25 th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing
Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this
format.
PS/25/01/2019
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply (M.E.1) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam 6 th Floor, Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
3.The Commissioner, Palladam Municipality,
Palladam, Tiruppur District.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to punish the respondent for disobeying a previous court order.
Whether the petitioner's claim of false affidavit requires adjudication in the contempt petition.
Whether to maintain a second writ petition filed by the same petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Selvaraj
K.Phanindra Reddy
G.Prakash
P.Narayanan
T.S.Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
