Disposed

N.Sahul Hammed v. J.Jeyakanthan

Madras HC19 Aug 2020CONT P(MD)/44/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a contempt petition against the District Collector for alleged disobedience of a previous directive. The Additional Government Pleader submitted that the order had been complied with. The court closed the contempt petition allowing the petitioner to question compliance through appropriate legal channels if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; liberty granted to question compliance in legal manner.

N.Sahul Hammed Vs J.Jeyakanthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CONT.P.(MD)No.44 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.08.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

CONT.P.(MD)No.44 of 2020

¶7

N.Sahul Hameed : Petitioner/Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Mr.J.Jeyakanthan I.A.S., The District Collector, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶10

: Contemnor/Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnor / respondent for willfully and deliberately disobeying the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.20175 of 2018 dated 19.08.2019.

¶12

Prayer in WP(MD). 20175/ 2018 :

¶13

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 24.08.2017 and 17.07.2018 and give necessary directions to the authorities, not to disturb the free transport of used sand and other building materials from Varadhalakshmi Mills demolished building at Kalprabhu village to the petitioners construction site situated in Thanakkankulam Village, Madurai District.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Govindan For Respondent : Mr.M.Rajarajan Additional Government Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the order and the direction given by this Court have been complied with. He has also produced the copy of the proceedings, dated 18.08.2020.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is for the petitioner to question the same in the manner

¶18

1/2

¶19

CONT.P.(MD)No.44 of 2020

¶20

known to law. This contempt petition is closed granting such liberty.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (AD II)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

¶26

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶27

¶28

Mr.J.Jeyakanthan I.A.S., The District Collector, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-14628[F] dated 21/08/2020 )

¶30

CONT.P.(MD)No.44 of 2020 19.08.2020

¶31

KK(27.08.2020) 2P 3C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

N.Sahul Hammed v. J.Jeyakanthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Sahul Hammed v. J.Jeyakanthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Inspector of Police Vs K.Varadharajan

P. Kaliyuganathan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Rayan @ Rajan @ Godwinraj Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

N.Pandurangan Vs Dayanand Kataria, I.A.S.

Jeyaram Shankar Vs The Additional Superintendent of Police

C.Sathaiah Vs the Govt of India