Madras High Court
J.Mohanraj vs K.Phanindra Reddy on 21 October, 2021
Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.10.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019
J.Mohanraj .. Petitioner
Vs
K.Phanindra Reddy
Commissioner
Hindu Religious Endowment Board
Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai – 600 034. .. Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondent for
violating the order of the Court dated 19.2.2019 passed in
W.P.No.9336 of 2018 and punish the contemnors for undermining the
majesty of justice.
For the Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Perumal
For the Respondent : Mr.Harsha C. Raj
Counsel for the State
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioner herein complained of alienation of temple lands
and the failure on the part of the respondent to the writ petition
filed by the petitioner herein, W.P.No.9336 of 2018, to take any
action based on the petitioner's representation.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a judgment
and order of February 19, 2019. In the operative part of the order,
it was observed that the respondent to the writ petition was bound
to act in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and the Madras City Tenants
Protection Act and in the light of the directions passed by the court.
The petitioner's representation dated March 21, 2016 was directed
to be considered in the light of the provisions of the statute of
1959, the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and the directions
issued earlier by this court. Such representation was to be
considered within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.
The order also required the respondent to the writ petition to take
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019
action, within a period of four weeks from the date of the decision
on the representation, if permissible in law.
3. There is no dispute that the relevant representation was
considered by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Administration Department and on March 8, 2019, a
reasoned decision was communicated to the petitioner. The
petitioner seeks to assert that the order dated February 19, 2019
was not confined to the mere consideration of the petitioner's
representation, but it goaded the alleged contemnor herein to take
action in accordance with law. The substance of the present petition
is that the alleged contemnor has not taken appropriate action
despite the previous order of this court requiring such action.
4. It appears that some of the land belonging to the temple
may have been alienated or leases in respect thereof created long
prior to the writ petition being filed that entitled the tenants or the
occupants at such land to some protection. Whether or not more
action would have been taken or ought to have been taken is a
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019
matter of conjecture. What is evident is that the representation
was duly considered and dealt with and some action has been
initiated thereafter, though it appears that the petitioner may not
be satisfied with the degree of the action taken.
5. In this quasi-criminal jurisdiction, a person is said to be
guilty of contempt if there is any deliberate and willful violation of
an order passed by court. In the present case, there does not
appear to be any deliberate or willful violation of the order dated
February 19, 2019 even though the matter leaves a feeling that the
alleged contemnor could have done better in taking further action
against the encroachers.
6. In course of the present proceedings, the alleged
contemnor was required to furnish further details. In a sense, such
order passed in the contempt proceedings required a more pro-
active role to be played by the Commissioner.
7. It is submitted on behalf of the alleged contemnor that by
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019
an affidavit filed on September 8, 2021, the details as required to
be furnished by the relevant order passed in the present
proceedings have been furnished.
8. While it is possible that the petitioner's objective in freeing
all the land from encroachment has not been attained, in the
contempt jurisdiction, it has only to be ascertained whether there
has been any deliberate or willful breach of the order.
9. In the light of the representation being considered and
some action being taken, the alleged contemnor cannot be found to
be guilty of contempt. Accordingly, Contempt Petition No.1331 of
2019 is dropped by leaving the petitioner free to raise the
outstanding issues pertaining to the encroachment or the failure to
remove the encroachers or wrongful alienation by way of further
proceedings. On the basis of the material furnished and the reports
filed by the alleged contemnor pursuant to orders passed in the
present proceedings, it cannot be said that there has been any
willful or deliberate breach of the order dated February 19, 2019.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019
There will be no order as to costs.
(S.B., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
21.10.2021
Index : No
sasi
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(sasi)
Contempt Petition No.1331 of 2019
21.10.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
