Disposed

B.Kuberan, v. P.Uma Maheswari

Madras HC12 Mar 2021CONT P(MD)/334/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act against officials for alleged non-compliance with a prior order. The court found that the underlying mandate had been complied with and closed the petition, allowing a challenge if the petitioner remains dissatisfied.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; petitioner permitted to challenge original order if unsatisfied.

B.Kuberan, Vs P.Uma Maheswari — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.03.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶5

Cont.P.(MD) No.334 of 2021 in W.P.(MD)No.25179 of 2018

¶6

B.Kuberan

¶7

... Petitioner/Petitioner

vs.

1.P.Uma Maheswari

District Collector,

Pudukottai, Pudukottai District

¶12

2.K. Santhosh Kumar

¶13

Joint Director/project Director,

¶14

District Rural Development Agency, Pudukottai.

¶15

3.J. Kalaiselvi

¶16

Special Officer/block Development Officer(Village Panchayat, Kannandarkovil,

¶17

Pudukottai District ... Contemnors/Appellants

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents herein for their willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.25179 of 2018 dated 28.01.2019.

¶19

Prayer in WP(MD). 25179/ 2018 :

¶20

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 settle the amount of Rs.6,06,245 due to the petitioner for the construction of public toilet in Andalkulam Panchayat, Pudukottai District with interest within a time frame fixed by this Court..

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh Special Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/contemnors would submit that the order passed in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petition has been complied with.

¶24

¶25

2.In view of the same, this Court does not think that this contempt petition can be kept pending anymore and accordingly, the same stands closed. However, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the order passed by the respondents, he is at liberty to challenge the same in a manner known to law, if he is so advised.

¶26

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

1.P.Uma Maheswari

District Collector,

Pudukottai, Pudukottai District

¶34

2.K. Santhosh Kumar

¶35

Joint Director/project Director,

¶36

District Rural Development Agency, Pudukottai.

¶37

3.J. Kalaiselvi

¶38

Special Officer/block Development Officer(Village Panchayat, Kannandarkovil,

¶39

Pudukottai District

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-11159[F] dated 15/03/2021 )

¶41

+1 CC to M/s.R.J.KARTHICK, Advocate ( SR-11240[F] dated 15/03/2021 )

¶42

Cont.P.(MD)No.334 of 2021 in W.P.(MD)No.25179 of 2018

¶43

sss(CO) KK(01.04.2021) 2P 6C

¶44

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

B.Kuberan, v. P.Uma Maheswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Kuberan, v. P.Uma Maheswari

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Narkis Parvin Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Ramar.S Vs the District Revenue Officer

Palaniyappan.N Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Subash Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Xavier Vs Pankaj Kumar Bansal I.A.S.

C.Susila, Vs Geetha