V. Vaiyanan, v. Vimala
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner filed a contempt petition for non-implementation of an earlier order stopping illegal water extraction from a public tank. Authorities reported compliance and removal of oil pumps. Court closed the petition but directed continued vigilance.
What did the court decide?
Contempt petition closed; authorities directed to maintain vigilance around the tank to prevent illegal water tapping.
What the court decided
Cont.P(MD)No.392 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Contempt Petition(MD)No.392 of 2022
V.Vaiyanan ... Petitioner/Writ Petitioner
vs.
1.Vimala, Tahsildar, Vilathikulam Taluk,
Tuticorin District.
2.Muniyasamy, The Revenue Inspector, O/o. The Revenue Office, Kadalgudi,
Vilathikulam Taluk,
Tuticorin District.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
whether the order of this Court directing authorities to stop illegal extraction of water has been implemented
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
V. Vaiyanan
- respondent
Vimala, Tahsildar
- respondent
Muniyasamy, Revenue Inspector
- respondent
Sivabalan, Block Development Officer
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court