Samraj v. a. A.K. Mani
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner filed a contempt petition for punishment of the Block Development Officer for allegedly disobeying a prior order regarding land encroachment. The bench closed the petition citing the existence of related proceedings in WP(MD)N0.2413 of 2020 subject to future challenge.
What did the court decide?
The contempt petition was closed as nothing remained for further adjudication due to related proceedings.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Cont.P.(MD) No.203 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.08.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM Cont.P.(MD)No.203 of 2020
(Through Video conferencing) Samraj ...Petitioner/Petitioner
-Vs-
Mr.A.K.Mani The Block Development Officer Block Development Office Sankarankovil Tirunelveli District. ...3rd Respondent/Contempnor
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act, praying to punish the respondent herein for committing grave contempt and gross disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24398 of 2019 dated 19.11.2019 and pass such further or other orders.
PRAYER in WP(MD):24398 of 2019 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment made by the fourth respondent in Old Survey No.498/5, New Survey No.800/8 at the extent of 75 cents situated at Ilavankulam, Kalappakulam Panchayat, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District by virtue of letter in Na.Ka.No.A4/4604/2018 dated 25.09.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition should be closed in light of pendency of related proceedings.
Whether further adjudication is required given the subject matter challenge in another writ petition.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Samraj
- respondent
Mr.A.K.Mani
Coram
M.SATHYANARAYANAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court