Disposed

Raju v. Thiru.Dr.a.Arun Thamburaj and 2 others

Madras HC5 Nov 2024CONT P/1759/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging disobedience of a writ order directing removal of encroachments near a banyan tree. State officials reported removal and undertook to remove illegally placed idols and prevent any place of worship being recreated there. The undertaking was accepted and the contempt petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Undertaking accepted; idols to be removed; no temple/place of worship to be recreated; petition disposed of.

Raju Vs Thiru.Dr.a.Arun Thamburaj and 2 others — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Cont.P.No.1759 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.11.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶8

Cont.P.No.1759 of 2024

Raju

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Dr.A.Arun Thamburaj The District Collector Cuddalore.

¶13

Manikandan The Tahsildar Veppur, Cuddalore.

¶14

Rajendran The Executive Engineer Public Works Department Veppur Town & Taluk Cuddalore.

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience and violation of the order dated 21.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.24326 of 2023.

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Cont.P.No.1759 of 2024

¶20

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Poornima For Respondents : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader Assisted by Mrs.E.Ranganyakai Additional Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

Shri.Prabakar states that the encroachments were removed long ago,

¶24

soon after the order was passed. He further states in fact, there was no encroachment. It is just some villagers were planting mango saplings which have been uprooted. Villagers have been warned and they have stopped planting.

¶25

Mr.Prabakar tenders photographs taken this morning (7 pages) which are marked as X, X1, X2, X3, X4, X5 and X6, to show that in the place concerned, there is only wild grass growing. At the same time, we find in one photograph, a broken idol of Nandhi and in another, we find an idol of Lord Ganesha garlanded and also a mooshak garlanded. From the picture,

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Cont.P.No.1759 of 2024

¶29

it appears that the garlands are fresh. There also appears to be a half empty

¶30

bottle of gingely oil and a cover for lighting lamp. Pieces of tiles are also kept and the base is cemented. Therefore, it is obvious that action is in place to construct a proper temple around the banyan tree.

¶31

Mr.Prabakar, on instructions from Mr.D.George Fernando, Deputy Tahsildar and Mr.Ravi, Assistant, Veppur Taluk, Cuddalore District, states that the Ganesha idol and mooshak are illegally kept and all will be removed by tomorrow. Officers undertake not to permit any such temple or place of worship being recreated. Undertaking is accepted.

¶32

Petition is disposed of.

¶33

(K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ) (SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.)

¶34

05.11.2024

¶35

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶36

kpl

¶37

___________ Page 3 of 4_

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Cont.P.No.1759 of 2024

¶40

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

¶41

(kpl)

¶42

Cont.P.No.1759 of 2024

¶43

05.11.2024

¶44

___________ Page 4 of 4_

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Raju v. Thiru.Dr.a.Arun Thamburaj and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. Thiru.Dr.a.Arun Thamburaj and 2 others

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

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh and Co. Kg, Vs Tanmed Pharma India Private Limited

Kalu Singh Rathore Vs Manohar Singh

Anurag Sharan Vs M/S.Jm Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.

R.Venkatesan Vs a.R.Ragulnath IAS

Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S. Momentous Photography Vs State Tax Officer / Adjudication - II