Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(Mad) 1077

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
D. Vedha Manickam - Petitioner
Vs.
Balakrishnan, The Executive Officer, Kothanallur Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District - Respondent
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1553 of 2015 in Writ Petition (MD)No.11223 of 2014
Decided On : 04-01-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Samidurai.
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Murugan Govt. Advocate.

Granting liberty to challenge an order in a separate proceeding when compliance with the court order is claimed.

Headnote:
Contempt - Compliance with Court Order - Liberty to Challenge Order
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Contempt Petition alleging non-compliance with a court order. The respondent claimed compliance with the order before the contempt petition was filed.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order had been complied with before the contempt petition was filed. The petitioner sought liberty to challenge the order rejecting their building plan permission.
Issues: Compliance with court order, liberty to challenge order
Ratio Decidendi: The court closed the contempt petition, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the order in a separate proceeding.
Final Decision: Contempt petition closed with liberty to challenge the order in a separate proceeding.

ORDER :

This Contempt Petition is filed complaining that the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.11223 of 2014 dated 10.07.2014 is not complied with.

2. This Court, on 30.11.2015, issued statutory notice to the respondent. After notice, the respondent/contemnor is personally present before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/contemnor submitted that the order passed by this Court has been complied with even before filing the contempt petition, through proceedings dated 02.09.2014.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no such order was communicated to the petitioner so far. Further, he submitted that since the request of the petitioner seeking for building plan permission has been rejected by the said order dated 02.09.2014, a liberty may be given to the petitioner to challenge the same in a separate proceedings.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this contempt petition is closed with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the above said order in a separate proceeding in a manner known to law. Consequently, the appearance of the respondent is dispensed with. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(Mad) 1077

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTK. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.D. Vedha Manickam - PetitionerVs.Balakrishnan, The Executive Officer, Kothanallur Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District - RespondentContempt Petition (MD)No.1553 of 2015 in Writ Petition (MD)No.11223 of 2014Decided On : 04-01-2016

Granting liberty to challenge an order in a separate proceeding when compliance with the court order is claimed.