Madras High Court
Rajambal vs Bala Murugan on 21 March, 2022
Cont.P.No.1394 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Contempt Petition No.1394 of 2013
Rajambal .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Bala Murugan
The Executive Officer
Tirukoilur Town Panchayat
Tirukoilur, Villupuram District.
2. Executive Officer
Arulmigu Ulaganatha Perumal Temple
Tirukoilur, Villupuram District.
3. T.Rangaraja Iyengar
Kariyadarshi
M/m Thiruvikrama Perumal Koil
No.59, Sannadhi Street
Thirukoilur. .. Respondents
[R2 impleaded vide order dated 13.09.2013 &
R3 impleaded vide order dated 07.11.2013
in Sub.A.No.634 of 2013.]
___________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1394 of 2013
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 23.06.2011 in W.P.No.8938 of 2011.
For the Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
for respondent 1
Ms.Bhargavi
for respondent 2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The contempt petition has been filed in reference to
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order dated 23.06.2011, by which, the
writ petition was dismissed.
2. The paragraphs aforesaid are quoted hereunder for ready
reference:
"3. The learned Government Pleader, referring to the
counter affidavit, has submitted that within four weeks the
encroachment shall be removed. In the counter affidavit, inter
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1394 of 2013
alia, in paragraph 4, it is stated as follows:-
"4. The allegation in paragraphs 4 and 5 are not
correct. The general allegations made in the
affidavit in my respectful submission are not
germane to the present writ petition. The
allegation that the roads adjoining the temple had
been encroached by private individuals and
kutcha and pucca structures had been raised and
town panchayat had taken no steps to arrest it and
width of the road had been reduced considerably
are not correct. The further allegation that the old
union office known as Katta Gopura Veedhi,
South Vanamalai Mada Veedhi, Perumal Naicken
Street, North Street, over which public had once
enjoyed free movement have been lost to the
encroachers are not correct. As far as Katta
Gopura Veedhi is concerned, already there is
dispute between the Temple authority and traders
or encroachers. Hence, we could not remove the
encroachment. The temple authorities have to
remove encroachment in Vadakku Vanamalai
Mada Veedhi and South Vanamalai Veedhi. We
are taking steps to remove remaining
encroachment on the Government lands and it
will be done within four weeks."
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1394 of 2013
4. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the
counter affidavit, no further direction need be issued in this
case. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. However,
there will be no order as to costs."
4. In reference to the paragraph quoted above, the contempt
petition was filed and is pending for the last nine years. A
Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order on 13.09.2013 to
implead the temple as a party respondent in the contempt for the
first time, though it was not a party in the writ petition. The
compliance has been sought based on the undertaking quoted in
the order, without realising the fact that no direction was given by
the Court in reference to the undertaking quoted in paragraph 3 of
the order. Rather, the writ petition was dismissed with the
observation that no further direction is required. Whereas, whatever
undertaking was given, should have been reiterated to mean an
order for compliance.
5. Taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances, even
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1394 of 2013
the impleadment of the temple as a party respondent cannot be
taken to pass any order in the contempt having limited jurisdiction.
We cannot open a debate on merit while adjudicating the contempt
petition. The contempt petition has to be adjudicated to find out
whether the compliance of the order is made or not and not to
adjudicate the issue during the course of finding out of the
compliance or non-compliance, in view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of J.S.Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar [(1996) 6
SCC 291].
6. In view of the above, we cannot pass an order to hold that
there was a willful disobedience of the order when no direction has
been issued by the Court. Thus, we are left with no option but to
close the contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition is
closed. However, with liberty to the petitioner to take the cause
afresh again and it may be from the stage it was existing in the
year 2011. The closure of the contempt petition would not be taken
to be adverse to the petitioner for the aforesaid. It is however
necessary to observe that it is for the petitioner to decide whether
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1394 of 2013
the temple should be made as a party respondent to the writ
petition or not, if it is taken afresh.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
21.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
kpl/drm
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1394 of 2013
M.N.BHANDARI, CJ
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
(kpl)
Cont.P.No.1394 of 2013
21.03.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
