Dismissed

U.Aslam v. T.K.Rajendran

Madras HC10 Apr 2019CONT P/452/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition challenging the Superintendent of Police for alleged delay in acting against a Muslim community committee, the High Court held the Respondents complied with orders. The Court found the petitioner misleading by omitting prior marriages, abusing process to harass police, and dismissed the petition with costs payable to the Juvenile Justice Fund.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Juvenile Justice Fund within ten days.

U.Aslam Vs T.K.Rajendran — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.04.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶8

Cont.P.No.452 of 2019 U.Aslam .. Petitioner Versus 1. Mr.T.K.Rajendran Director General of Police, Santhome, Chennai. 2. Mrs.Ponni, Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer: This Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 70/71 to punish the respondent for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order dated 31.10.2018 made in WP.22735 of 2017.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Silambu Selvan For Respondents : Mr.E.Manoharan

¶11

Additional Government Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J. )

¶14

Earlier, petitioner has filed W.P.No.22735 of 2017, for a mandamus directing the Secretary to the Government,

¶15

Home Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai, the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai and the

¶16

Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

respondents 1 to 3, respectively, to initiate effective

¶18

¶19

steps to prevent A.K.Saiyathu Ibrahim, Secretary of

¶20

Thiruvallur Mavatta Muslim Jamaath Orunginaippu Committee, Thiruvallur District, the 4th respondent therein, from passing Diktats, in the form of resolutions or of any nature in a manner affecting the fundamental rights of the citizen

¶21

to live with dignity by calling for Social Boycott of the

¶22

person and his family.

¶23

that Thiruvallur Mavatta Muslim Jamaath Orunginaippu Committee, Thiruvallur District has issued a letter dated 13.03.2017 to Mr.Imtiaz, younger brother of the writ petitioner regarding, the family dispute between Mr.U.Imtiaz and his wife, and the decision of the said committee, as per the 4th resolution, not to give no objection certificate to

¶24

Mr.Imtiaz and his brothers for marriage. There was another

¶25

letter dated 05.04.2017 by the said committee to the Chairman and Secretaries of all the Mosques, not to issue

¶26

“No Objection Certificate” for marriage of the three brothers viz., Mr.U.Imthiaz, Mr.U.Musthaq and Mr.U.Aslam.

¶27

Contentions were also made that despite a

¶28

complaint dated 01.05.2017 given to Inspector of Police, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District, requesting action to be taken

¶29

against the said Jamaath, no action was taken and hence, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.U.Aslam filed the instant writ petition for the relief

¶30

¶31

stated supra.

¶32

When the writ petition came up for hearing, Mr.S.Silambuselvan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that marriage of the petitioner's younger brother Mr.U.Mustaq was scheduled on 03.10.2018 and in view of Diktats and threat, police assistance was sought for, for the performance of the marriage.

¶33

Going through the material on record, we found that though a complaint dated 17.09.2018 was acknowledged by the Inspector of Police, Thirupalaivanam Police Station, Thiruvallur District, no action was taken and having regard to the fact marriage was to be solemnized, for the petitioner's younger brother Mr.U.Mustaq, by interim order dated 01.10.2018, we directed as hereunder.

¶34

"9. We direct the Inspector of Police, Thirupalaivanam Police Station, Thiruvallur District, to look into the complaint dated 17.09.2018, given by Mr.U.Mustaq Ahmed/petitioner's brother. Mr.E.Manoharan, learned Additional Government Pleader, is directed to communicate, the order passed by this Court, to the Inspector of Police, Thirupalaivanam Police Station, and the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District.

¶35

10. Post on 09.10.2018."

¶36

Ultimately, we disposed of the writ petition on

¶37

31.10.2018, directing the Director General of Police, Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nadu, Chennai and the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur

¶38

¶39

District, Thiruvallur, respondents 2 and 3, respectively, in the writ petition, to initiate an enquiry on the basis of representation made by Mr.U.Aslam, writ petitioner therein, and to take suitable action in accordance with law. We further directed that the said exercise should be complied

¶40

with within four weeks from the date of copy of the order.

¶41

which according to the petitioner, is a clear case of contempt, and therefore, filed the instant Contempt Petition No.452 of 2019.

¶42

When the matter came up on 05.04.2019, we

¶43

directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to get instructions. Reverting Ms.R.Ponni, Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District has filed a status report dated

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 06.04.2019. Observing that answer to the contempt petition

¶45

should be in the form of an affidavit and not in form of

¶46

¶47

status report, we directed that an affidavit should be filed. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, has filed an affidavit stating that pursuant to the directions, issued by this Court, on 18.02.2019 summons were issued under Section 160 and 91 of Cr.P.C. to the parties. Both parties attended, but failed to produce relevant documents and hence, enquiry was postponed on 28.02.2019. Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District has further stated as hereunder. 5) It is most Respectfully submitted that, On 28.02.2019 at 10:00 hrs, the following personal attended the enquiry:1. Tr. U. Aslam, - Petitioner S/o. Y. Ubayadulla (WP.No.22735/2017) 2. Tr. A.K. Syed Ibrahim, - 4th Respondent (WP No General Secretary, 22735/2017) ThiruvallurMavattaAnaithu Muslim JamathOrunginaippu Committee, MariyamMathina Mosque Street, Ponneri

¶48

Tr. M. SeeniHathim - President 4. Tr. Noor Mohammed - Treasurer 5. Tr. Mohammed Ali Manfa - Organizer T - KtosMlsbhah - Dy. president 7. Tr. MohamadMoosa - Dy. president 6. It is most Respectfully submitted that, the enquiry

¶49

reveals that the petitioner Tr. U. Aslam has alleged that:- An unregistered organization functioning in the name of "Thiruvallur Mavatta Anaithu Muslim Jamath Orung'inaippu Committee" is doing KattaPanchayat among the Muslim people and they are dealing with the Muslim matrimonial dispute by illegal manner. Also, he stated that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his brother Imtiaz has married one Rahmath Nisha on 21.02.2016 and she has approached the alleged committee to solve her matrimonial

¶50

¶51

dispute. The committee has counseled both husband and wife and passed resolution on 28.12.2016 to live together in a separate house. Subsequently the committee had informed his brother by a letter dated 13.03.2017, with distorted facts and allegations, and gave a Diktat that as his brother refuses to live with his wife, the committee informed all the Jamath and the local Mosque that NOC will not be given to other members of his family for marriage and such other purpose. Further, he told that the organization had issued a circular on 05.04.2017 to all Mosques in Thiruvallur District, that NOC should not be issued to him and his younger brother Tr. Imtiaz for marriage purpose. Under the above circumstances, he approached the Hon'ble High Court to take stringent penal action against them to stop their illegal activities.

¶52

It is Respectfully submitted that, one Tr. A.K. Syed Ibrahim stated that he is working as General Secretary, since 1987 and this committee was registered in the name of "North Chenglepet District Anaithu Muslim Jamath" in the registration No. 32/1987 (and thereafter was not renewed) and after that the committee was renamed as "Thiruvallur Mavatta Anaithu Muslim Jamath Orunginaippu Committee" and now functioning with 153 Jamaths in the name of Thiruvallur, Nellore, Chittoor, Mavatta Anaithu Muslim Jamath Orunginaippu Committee.

¶53

It is most Humbly submitted that, also he stated that, the petitioner's brother Tr. Imtiaz who married downtrodden Muslim background based girls, and then left them alone within short period of three or four months. With his affluent background he refused to live with such girls and told "Talak" for the first wife and then he approached second wife and forced her to settle with sum of amount one lakh for "Talak". Among these circumstances he moved for third marriage along with Rahmath Nisha, who was residing at No.23, TVK https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Street, Redhills, Chennai. Based on that complaints from two earlier wifes, the Jamaath objected to the act of third marriage. Further, he

¶54

¶55

refused all the allegations given by the petitioner and the remaining office bearers also told the same version.

¶56

It is humbly submitted further that the activities of the said committee were also enquired from the locals in and around the Jamath. Enquiry also disclosed that there are no any allegations against the committee so far with Police Station (or) Tashildar.

¶57

It is most Respectfully submitted that, I have gone through this matter, and from the enquiry it is seen that though the matter involves Matrimonial dispute, it is still not within the realm or no legal right/power is available to the committee to pass such diktat and to function as Court/Judicial forum. At best, the committee can help the alleged women by advising them to approach the appropriate legal forum, in accordance with their law and customs and provide them with guidance and assistance, rather than issuing such orders. They can only seek to conduct conciliation/mediation, based on the request of the parties and only on both parties accepting any decision taken will be finding on them. If mutual consensus is not arrived, such orders/diktat cannot be passed against the parties involved. In this regard, the action of the committee which to running of kangaroo Court is contrary to law and therefore, they have been called and warned not to do so in the future, failing which appropriate legal action will be taken and an undertaking has also obtained from them.

¶58

I humbly submit that the Respondent has not acted contrary, in disobedience or derogatory to the orders of this Hon'ble Court and it is humbly reiterated that any act of the Respondent either borders or conveys, meaning amounting to disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court, I tender an unconditional apology and pray that the said apology may be accepted by this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that the Respondents herein have the utmost respect and regard for the Orders of the High Court. The Respondent respectfully https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submits that they had initiated steps to comply with the order and it is only during the same, the correct facts which were at the earlier

¶59

¶60

instance not brought to the attention of the Hon'ble Court, came to light. The Respondent reiterates that it is not the intention of the Respondent to disobey the order of the Hon'ble Court in any manner. It is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider the above mentioned facts and circumstances explained and close the Contempt Petition and thus render justice."

¶61

Reading of the above, shows that Mr.Imtiaz was

¶62

married twice, and when there was an attempt for a third marriage, wives seemed to have given a petition to the committee and in that context, the said committee has informed all the jamaaths and local mosque, Thiruvallur District, about the same. Superintendent of Police, has submitted that an enquiry has been conducted and that Thiruvallur Mavatta Muslim Jamaath Orunginaippu Committee, Thiruvallur District, 4th respondent in the writ petition has been warned not to do so in future, failing which legal action would be taken. Undertaking to that effect has also been obtained from the 4th respondent.

¶63

Undertaking given by Thiruvallur Mavatta Muslim

¶64

Jamaath Orunginaippu Committee, Thiruvallur District, 4th respondent in the writ petition, is reproduced hereunder.

¶65

tpLeu; 03/04/2019 A.K.bra;aJ ,g;whcwPk; bghJr; brayhsu;

¶66

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ jpUts;Su; khtl;l midj;J K!;yPk; $khmj; xU';fpizg;g[ fkpl;o bghd;ndhp

¶67

¶68

bgWeu;

¶69

cau;jpU/ Ma;thsu; mtu;fs; fhty; epiyak;. bghd;ndhp

¶70

ma;ah.

¶71

nkw;fz;l khtl;l midj;J K!;yPk; $khmj; xU';fpidg;g[ fkpl;oapd; bghJ brayhsuhf fle;j 10 Mz;LfSf;F nkyhf ehd; gzpahw;wp tUfpd;nwd;/

¶72

bghd;ndhp cgaJy;yh mtu;fspd; kfd; U.m!;yhk; vd;gtu; v';fs; $khmj;jpd;kPJ bfhLj;Js;s g[fhhpd; nghpy; vd;ida[k; v';fs; $khmj; epu;thfpfs; cWg;gpdu;fs; midnthu;fisa[k; tprhuid bra;jPu;fs;/ jpUkz tptfhu';fspy; fztd; kidtp gpur;ridfspy; ,U jug;gpdUk; xj;Jf;bfhz;L mDFk;gl;rj;jpy; tprhuidf;F Vw;Wf; bfhz;lhy;kl;Lnk eh';fs; tprhuid bra;J ,Uf;fpnwhk;/ nru;e;J thH;tjw;F cz;lhdKau;r;rpfis nkw;bfhs;nthk;/

¶73

v';fs; $khmj;jpw;F tUk; gpur;ridfspy;. rl;lj;jpw;F tpnuhjkhf vt;tptj gprur;ridfspYk; <LgLtjpy;iy/ nkw;go braYf;fhf jh';fs; v';fis fLikahf vr;rhpf;if bra;jPu;fs;/ ,dp tUk; fhy';fspy; xJ nghd;W bray;fSf;F ,lk; mspf;fhky; rl;lj;jpw;F cl;gl;L ele;J bfhs;nthk;/ kPWk; gl;rj;jpy; rl;lg;go eltf;if vLj;Jf; bfhs;syhk; vd;gij bjhptpaj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwhk;/

¶74

Thus from the reading of the affidavit of the

¶75

Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District and the undertaking of the Committee, Thiruvallur Mavatta Muslim Jamaath Orunginaippu Committee, Thiruvallur District, 4th https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent in the writ petition, shows that order of this

¶76

¶77

Court made in WP No.22735 of 2017 dated 31.10.2018, has been acted upon. There is no willful and intentional disobedience by the respondents herein.

¶78

From the material on record, we could deduce

¶79

that having taken advantage of police assistance for the purpose of the marriage of petitioner's younger brother, U.Mustaq, petitioner has filed the instant contempt petition to harass the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai and the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur, respondents 1 and 2, respectively in the contempt petition.

¶80

Reading of both the affidavits filed in support of the writ petition No.22735 of 2017 and the Superintendent

¶81

of Police, Thiruvallur District and the contents of the

¶82

affidavit filed in the Contempt petition by the petitioner, we could deduce that the petitioner has not disclosed the

¶83

facts, as regards the marriage of Mr.Imtiaz, and the reason as to why, wives of Mr.Imtiaz have approached to the Jamaath. In paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the Supporting affidavit to W.P.No.22735 of 2017, the petitioner has stated

¶84

that there was misunderstanding between Mr.Imtiaz and his wife, but the affidavit of Superintendent of Police,

¶85

Thiruvallur District, 2nd respondent in the contempt https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶86

petition shows that he was married twice before filing of

¶87

¶88

the instant writ petition, which fact, wives of Imtiaz, have brought to the notice of the Jamaath about the 3^rd marriage of Imtiaz and that is why Jamaath seemed to have decided not to issue any “No Objection Certificate” to the writ petitioner, and his brothers.

¶89

Though, Mr.S.Silambu Selvan, learned counsel for

¶90

the petitioner made an attempt to justify that there was no willful non disclosure of the above facts in the supporting affidavit to WP No.22735 of 2017, we are not inclined to accept the same, in the light of the categorical affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District in the Contempt Petition, which we accept.

¶91

From the above, we observe that attempt of the

¶92

petitioner is nothing but arm twisting the Jamaath through

¶93

the Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu and Superintendent of Police of Thiruvallur District. On the

¶94

facts and circumstances of this case, we find no bonafides

¶95

observe that it is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶96

Therefore, we are of the view that Contempt Petition

¶97

deserves to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, instant Contempt Petition is dismissed with costs, quantified at

¶98

Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand Only], to be paid by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶99

petitioner to the account of Juvenile Justice Fund,

¶100

¶101

Director of Social Defence, Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of Tamilnadu, Kellys, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010,

¶102

within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the District Collector, Thiruvallur District, is directed to take action for recovery, under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.

¶103

After the Court passed the order imposing costs,

¶104

Mr.S.Silambu Selvan, learned counsel on record submitted

¶105

that petitioner is an advocate and the observations made in

¶106

this order, would affect him. Even in the supporting affidavit to WP No.22735 of 2017, petitioner has not even

¶107

disclosed the fact that he is an advocate. We considered

¶108

the request, but not inclined to delete the same, except

¶109

regarding costs.

¶110

With the above observations, Contempt Petition is dismissed. No Costs.

¶111

ars

¶112

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) //Certified to be true copy//

¶113

Dated at Madras this the day of 2019.

¶114

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶115

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

Sd/20/05/2019