Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
Romana W/o.Mr.Jayaraj – Appellant
Versus
Thiru J.Kumaragurubaran Commissioner Corporation of Chennai – Respondent
Contempt Petition No.1890 of 2025 | Sub Application No.690 of 2025 | W.P.No.8176 of 2022
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.Thanka Sivan
For the Respondents: Dr.N.Paul Sunder Singh
Court emphasized enforcement of compliance with prior orders and permitted revival of contempt proceedings upon future disobedience.
Headnote:The petition for contempt is based on the alleged willful disobedience of a prior court order pertaining to illegal water connections. The court affirmed the necessity of compliance with its orders, allowing enforcement action if disobedience recurs. The final order confirmed compliance, closing the proceeding.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. respondents failed to comply with court orders regarding connections. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court noted the importance of protection during enforcement actions. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents' claims of obstruction lack documented proof. (Para 4) |
| 4. final decision to close contempt proceedings unless violations recur. (Para 5) |
ORDER
The contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience on part of the respondents in complying with the orders of this Court in W.P.No.8176 of 2022.
2. By an order dated 12.09.2025, I recorded the fact that the writ petition in W.P.No.8176 of 2022 came to be ordered on the undertaking that was given by CMWSSB, that no action of laying pipelines would be effected in the premises, claimed to be owned by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner's grievance is that, after the writ petition had been closed, the respondents in collusion with the local Councillor and her husband had effected water connections to the alleged illegal occupants. I took note of the fact that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly, and therefore, the illegal connection that has been effected was directed to be disconnected forthwith.
3. The grievance of the respondents was that the police officials were not affording protection, while they were attempting to disconnect the illegal water connection.
4. I noted that in Indian Penal Code , as well as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023, sufficient provisions have been incorporated to enable the officials of the Government to lodge a complaint, in case they are obstructed during performance of their official duties. Though the respondents pleaded that they had lodged a complaint, no record or the proof for receipt of the same was given by the third respondent. Consequently, I directed the third respondent to implement his undertaking that has been given by CMWSSB in the writ petition forthwith, and if necessary, to take appropriate police protection for the same. Accordingly, I adjourned the matter to enable the third respondent to implement the order.
5. Today, when the matter was called, the third respondent has filed an affidavit that after taking assistance of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010, the illegal water connection has been disconnected as undertaken by them before this Court. Since the orders have been complied with, I do not find any necessity to continue with the contempt proceedings.
