Dismissed

J.Mohanraj v. K.Phanindra Reddy

Madras HC21 Oct 2021CONT P/1331/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner challenged the Commissioner for failing to enforce a prior court order regarding temple land encroachment. The High Court held that since the representation was considered and some action was initiated, there was no deliberate or willful breach of the order. The petition was dropped.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019 is dropped; petitioner free to raise outstanding issues in further proceedings. No order as to costs.

J.Mohanraj Vs K.Phanindra Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.10.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶8

Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019

¶9

J.Mohanraj, No.33, 2^nd Street, East Abiramapuram, Mylapore, Chennai 4 .. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

K.Phanindra Reddy Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowment Board Nungambakkam High Road Chennai – 600 034.

¶12

.. Respondent

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondent for violating the order of the Court dated 19.2.2019 passed in W.P.No.9336 of 2018 and punish the contemnors for undermining the majesty of justice.

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Perumal

¶15

For the Respondent : Mr.Harsha C. Raj Counsel for the State

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶18

The petitioner herein complained of alienation of temple lands and the

¶19

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

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019

¶22

failure on the part of the respondent to the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, W.P.No.9336 of 2018, to take any action based on the petitioner's representation.

¶23

The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order of February 19, 2019. In the operative part of the order, it was observed that the respondent to the writ petition was bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and in the light of the directions passed by the court. The petitioner's representation dated March 21, 2016 was directed to be considered in the light of the provisions of the statute of 1959, the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and the directions issued earlier by this court. Such representation was to be considered within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The order also required the respondent to the writ petition to take action, within a period of four weeks from the date of the decision on the representation, if permissible in law.

¶24

There is no dispute that the relevant representation was considered by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department and on March 8, 2019, a reasoned decision was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner seeks to assert that the order

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019

¶27

dated February 19, 2019 was not confined to the mere consideration of the petitioner's representation, but it goaded the alleged contemnor herein to take action in accordance with law. The substance of the present petition is that the alleged contemnor has not taken appropriate action despite the previous order of this court requiring such action.

¶28

It appears that some of the land belonging to the temple may have been alienated or leases in respect thereof created long prior to the writ petition being filed that entitled the tenants or the occupants at such land to some protection. Whether or not more action would have been taken or ought to have been taken is a matter of conjecture. What is evident is that the representation was duly considered and dealt with and some action has been initiated thereafter, though it appears that the petitioner may not be satisfied with the degree of the action taken.

¶29

In this quasi-criminal jurisdiction, a person is said to be guilty of contempt if there is any deliberate and willful violation of an order passed by court. In the present case, there does not appear to be any deliberate or willful violation of the order dated February 19, 2019 even though the matter leaves a feeling that the alleged contemnor could have done better in taking further action against the encroachers.

¶30

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

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019

¶33

In course of the present proceedings, the alleged contemnor was

¶34

required to furnish further details. In a sense, such order passed in the contempt proceedings required a more pro-active role to be played by the Commissioner.

¶35

It is submitted on behalf of the alleged contemnor that by an affidavit filed on September 8, 2021, the details as required to be furnished by the relevant order passed in the present proceedings have been furnished.

¶36

While it is possible that the petitioner's objective in freeing all the land from encroachment has not been attained, in the contempt jurisdiction, it has only to be ascertained whether there has been any deliberate or willful breach of the order.

¶37

In the light of the representation being considered and some action being taken, the alleged contemnor cannot be found to be guilty of contempt. Accordingly, Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019 is dropped by leaving the petitioner free to raise the outstanding issues pertaining to the encroachment or the failure to remove the encroachers or wrongful alienation by way of further proceedings. On the basis of the material furnished and the reports filed by the alleged contemnor pursuant to orders passed in the present proceedings, it cannot be said that there has been any willful or deliberate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ breach of the order dated February 19, 2019.

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019

¶40

There will be no order as to costs.

¶41

SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶42

sasi

¶43

//Certified to be true copy//

¶44

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶45

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. GS/22/12/2021

¶46

¶47

The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowment Board Nungambakkam High Road Chennai – 600 034.

¶48

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

¶49

Page 5 of 5

J.Mohanraj v. K.Phanindra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Mohanraj v. K.Phanindra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Vijaya Vs The Authorised officer

Tmt. S.Umamaheswari Vs The High Court of Judicature at Madras

Ramesh @ John Senguttuvan Vs The District Collector

G.Prabhu Vs State of Tamil Nadu

K.Manogaran Vs Tamil nadu state Election Commissioner

People for Cattle in India (Pfci) Vs Principal Chief Conservator of