Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65433
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.Saravanan, J
P.Siva Perumal – Appellant
Versus
S.Anandh Arulmighu Baghavathi Amman Thirukovil, Kanyakumari – Respondent
Cont.P.(MD)No.793 of 2025 in W.P(MD)No.1631 of 2025
For the Petitioner: Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For R1: Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh
For R2:Mr.Veerakathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.S.Madhavan Additional Government Pleader
No contempt of court was found due to lack of prior disclosure regarding authority orders; entitlement to compensation for contract breach was recognized.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act - Section 11 - Allegation of willful disobedience to court order - Petitioner awarded a contract for collection of user fees but possession taken over by authorities - Court finds no contempt as order was made without full disclosure of facts - Petitioner entitled to compensation for loss due to breach of contract. (Paras 14, 18, 20, 21)
(B) Contractual Obligations - Extension of lease period - If the contractor is denied exploitation of rights due to external circumstances, an extension of lease period may be warranted. (Paras 14, 16, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was awarded a contract for maintaining a toilet facility, but control was taken over by local authorities for renovations without providing notice to the contractor, leading to alleged contempt of court claims.
Findings of Court:
The court concludes no contempt was committed but recognizes the contractor's right to seek compensation for the breach of contract, allowing for potential restitution.
Issues: The main issue was whether a contempt of court occurred due to taking over facilities without informing the court of prior orders impacting the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that no contempt arose as the involved parties did not adequately disclose procedural context, and it suggested the petitioner pursue compensation for losses incurred.
Result: The contempt petition is disposed of with allowances for pursuing compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consideration of contempt petition due to alleged violation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. context of authorities' renovation and petitioner's contract. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. recognition of potential entitlement for compensation. (Para 19 , 21) |
| 4. final conclusion and direction for compensation consideration. (Para 23) |
ORDER
The contempt petition has been filed for purported violation of the order this Court, dated 21.01.2025 in W.P(MD)No.1631 of 2025.
2. The petitioner is a small time Contractor, who was awarded a contract for the collection of user fees in the Toilet outside the Baghavathi Amman temple premise in Kanyakumari District. The contract was for a period of oner year starting from 01.07.2024 to 30.06.2025.
3. In the meanwhile, in connection with the visit of the Hon'ble Chief Minsister of the State on 10.12.2024, the revenue authorities decided to take over the control of the room and other areas to improvise the services to the devotees. Thus, at the instruction of the second respondent, and at the request of the then Town Panchayat since taken over by the third respondent, the petitioner handed over the possession to the temple and thereafter by the temple to the second respondent, which has now been taken over by the third respondent.
4. In connection with the aforesaid visit of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, an order was issued by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District vide proceedings dated 08.11.2024 bearing reference M3/E-2624437/2024. The said communication was for renovation of the various facilities in connection with the proposed visit of the Chief Minister on 10.12.2024. The context of the proceedings is reproduced below:
5. The said proceeding was a subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P(MD)No.28785 of 2024, filed by one Abeesh Kumar in his capacity as devotee of Kanyakumari Baghavathi Amman, wherein, a detailed order came to be passed by this Court in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8, which reads as under:
7.However, the second respondent informed that in order to do the above said works, the Temple has no funds and requested the first respondent to take up the public welfare activities through the local body with the Government funds. Accordingly, the first respondent ordered to maintenance by renovation of those amenities which were already provided to the general public. The general public is nothing but devotees. The Temple is situated at Thiruveni Sangamam and all the general public is coming for worshipping the Temple. Therefore, in order to strengthen public convenience, the first respondent ordered to maintain those amenities which are already availed by renovation. In fact on perusal of the order passed by the first respondent would reveal that the land should not be used for any commercial purpose and there should not be any permanent structure. Further, the said amenities should not be a hindrance to other performances if any towards the Temple. This land should be maintained by the fourth respondent and no rights claimed by the fourth respondent. After the order passed by the first respondent, now the fourth respondent has taken the following works for the welfare of devotees and tourists as follows:
'i. Construction of Differently abled persons toilet at Rs.7 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
ii. Construction of ramp for the Differently abled at Rs.10 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
iii. Construction of Mother's feeding room at Rs. 10 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
iv. Renovation of HR&CE controlled toilet at Rs. 15 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
v.Erection of high mast light at Triveni Sangamam at Rs.40.75 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
vi.Renovation of Tsunami Park at Rs.9.80 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
vii. Renovation of Sun-Rise point at Rs.7.40 Lakhs by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
viii. Renovation of cloak room at Triveni Sangamam by the Kanniyakumari Town Panchayat.
ix. Maintenance of clean drinking water by the
