Madras High Court
Peelamedu Consumer Voice vs K.Vijay Karthikeyan on 22 December, 2021
Cont.P.No.454 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
Contempt Petition No.454 of 2019
Peelamedu Consumer Voice
Rep. by its President P.V.Gopal
136, Ellai Thottam Road
Peelamedu
Coimbatore 641 004. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. K.Vijay Karthikeyan, IAS
The Commissioner
Coimbatore Corporation
Coimbatore Corporation Building
Coimbatore.
2. Dr.S.Peela Rajesh
The Director
Town and Country Planning
Anna Salai, Chennai 2.
3. S.Dhanraj
Local Planning Authority
Corporation Complex
Sivananda Colony
Coimbatore 641 012. .. Respondents
___________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.454 of 2019
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 to punish the respondent for willful disobedience and violation
of the order dated 17.12.2009 in W.P.No.21575 of 2007.
For the Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam
For M/s. BFS Legal
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Wilson
Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.Magesh
for respondent-1
Mr.C.Harsha Raj
Addl. Govt. Pleader
for respondent-1
Mr.M.Elumalai
for respondent-3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
The contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance
of the order dated 17.12.2009 in W.P.No.21575 of 2007.
2. The respondent contemnors have filed an affidavit to show
the compliance of the order, by referring to the directions in
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.454 of 2019
paragraph 17 of the order. For ready reference, paragraph 17 of the
order is quoted below:
"17. The first respondent-Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation is directed to prepare a
Scheme / Sketch for re-alignment of the Scheme
Road taking into consideration the construction put
up by the fourth respondent-Organisation in the
lands acquired for their purpose and submit the same
to the Local Planning Authority. The said exercise can
be done by the first respondent within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The Local Planning Authority, on receipt of
such a proposal from the first respondent, is directed
to consider the same and forward it to the second
respondent, viz., the director of Town and Country
Planning, Chennai within a period of two weeks
thereafter. The second respondent, on receipt of such
proposal from the Local Planning Authority, is
directed to consider the same and pass appropriate
orders thereon expeditiously, and not later than four
weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal from
the Local Planning Authority."
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.454 of 2019
3. The affidavit has been filed to show the compliance of all
the steps taken, as directed by the Court and that the Scheme has
also been approved. In view of the above, a prayer is made to close
the contempt petition and to discharge the contemnors, who are
otherwise present in Court pursuant to the direction of this Court
dated 10.11.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to
the order dated 13.07.2021 to show the intention of the Court while
passing the order to ensure that after approval of the Scheme Road,
it is also constructed.
5. We have considered the affidavit and also perused the order
dated 13.07.2021. The fact which is required to be taken into
consideration is only about the jurisdiction of the contempt Court. It
is to examine whether the compliance of the direction given by the
Court is made or not. Once the compliance is made, no further
direction could be given to extend the benefit beyond the order, of
which compliance is sought, in view of the judgment of the Apex
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.454 of 2019
Court in the case of J.S.Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar [(1996) 6
SCC 291].
6. In view of the above and finding compliance of the order,
we close the contempt petition and accordingly, discharge the
contemnors. The presence of the contemnors, pursuant to the
direction of the Court, is recorded. It may, however, be clarified that
if any further direction is required, the petitioner and for that
purpose, others would be at liberty to take appropriate remedy.
(M.N.B., ACJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
22.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
kpl
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.454 of 2019
M.N.BHANDARI, ACJ
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
(kpl)
Cont.P.No.454 of 2019
22.12.2021
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
