Madras High Court
Rep. By Its Secretary ... vs M.Govinda Rao Ias on 21 March, 2023
Cont.P.No.433 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.03.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Cont.P.No.433 of 2023
Kannagi Nagar Kudisal Pagudi Matru
Varia Cable T.V. Operators Welfare Society
Registered No.476/2009
Rep. by its Secretary Mr.S.Ramalingam
Thuraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. .. Petitioner
vs
1. M.Govinda Rao IAS
The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
Managing Director
No.5, Kamarajar Salai
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
2. K.Sivasankaran
The Executive Engineer, Special Zone
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ..
Respondents
Prayer : Contempt Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for the willful violation of the order
this Hon'ble Court dated 02.03.2011 and made in W.P.No.2310 of 2010.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ravi Sankar
For Respondent : Mrs.G.Thilagavathy
Senior Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Cont.P.No.433 of 2023
for Mr.B.Balagi
ORDER
The contempt petition is filed to punish the respondents for their
willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court on 02.03.2011 in
W.P.No.2310 of 2010. The operative portion of the order by this Court
reads as under:
“8. The contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, is that fee or tax cannot be collected
by authority in the absence of any provisions in this
regard.
9. There is force in the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner. The Tamil Nadu
Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971
under which the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
is constituted, does not authorise the Board to
impose any tax or fee.
10. In the absence of authority of law, it is not
open to the respondent Board to prescribe fee, to be
collected from the persons. The Board can only
recover rent and other charges from the occupants
under the allotment letter or contract entered into
between the parties. The impugned order on the fact
of it, is without jurisdiction. The impugned order is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.433 of 2023
quashed, by accepting the writ petition.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the
respondents, even after the orders passed by this Court, demanded
charges from the petitioner Society, who is the cable TV operators in
Kannagi Nagar. When this Court subsequently held that in the absence of
authority of law, it is not open to the respondent Board to prescribe fee to
be collected from the persons, the respondents are demanding such fees
from the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this
Court with reference to paragraph 9 of the order, wherein, this Court has
held that, “there is force in the condition of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance)
Act, 1971 under which the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board is
constituted, does not authorize the Board to impose any tax or fees”.
Relying on the above portion of the order, the learned counsel for the
petitioner reiterated that the authorities, at no circumstances, is
empowered to collect any such fees from the petitioner and therefore, they
have committed contempt of Court willfully.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.433 of 2023
4. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul & anr vs Tarak nath Gaguly & ors
in Appeal (crl.) No.170 of 1996, wherein, the Apex Court held that the
contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there
has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the Court and if the
conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience
is contumacious. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not
entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and
decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the
applicant. The Court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment
or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order
should have contained.
5. Relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel for the
petitioner states that when this Court quashed the impugned order
demanding fee from the petitioner, there is no reason whatsoever, to
demand fees thereafter and thus, the action of the respondents are
contemptuous and they are liable to be punished.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.433 of 2023
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Board opposed the said contention by stating that an
amendment came into force and Section 4B was substituted by Act 21 of
2011 with effect from 25.10.2011. As per Section 4B, the authorities are
empowered to recover any expenses in respect of the maintenance of the
cables and their works undertaken. Sub-section (6) of Section 4B
enumerates that “any permission granted by a public authority under this
Section may be given up to such reasonable condition as that public
authority deems fit to impose as to the payment of any expenses or time
or mode of execution of any work, or as to any other matter connected
with or related to any work undertaken by the cable operator in exercise
of those rights”. Relying on the above mentioned provision, the learned
Senior Counsel for the respondents reiterated that the amendment came
into force subsequently after the judgment, which is the subject matter of
the present contempt petition and therefore, there is no impediment for
the authorities to charge and demand fee after the amendment which
cannot be construed as contempt.
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the proposition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.433 of 2023
relied on by the petitioner is not in dispute. The Courts are expected to
confine with reference to the directions and orders passed while
exercising the contempt jurisdiction. Therefore, the respondents shall not
recover any fee in respect of the impugned order. However, there is no bar
for the respondent to demand charges after the amendment, which came
into force with effect from 25.10.2011. When this Court has emphatically
held at the time of passing of the order in the writ petition., the
respondent has no authority from the provision of the Act. However,
subsequently, Section 4B was necessarily substituted in the Cable
Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and by virtue of the amended
provisions, the authorities are empowered to demand charges / fees. Thus,
the order, no doubt, is to be confined with reference to the impugned
order and amendments made in enactment would not preclude the
authorities from demanding or collecting fees or charges. Thus, the order
passed by this Court is with reference to the impugned order and relating
to the charges sought to be demanded prior to the passing of the order
and after amendment, the Board is empowered to collect charges under
Section 4B of the Act, which came into effect from 25.10.2011.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.433 of 2023
amended Section 4B is only relating to the execution of any work and
therefore, the fees or charges cannot be collected. Clause (6) of the
provision indicates that “any permission granted by a public authority
under this Section may be given subject to such reasonable conditions”.
Thus, even while granting permission, the authorities are empowered to
impose certain reasonable conditions. Clause (6) further contemplates
“public authorities thinks fit to impose as to the payment of any expenses
or time or mode of execution of any work”. Therefore, the provision
provides scope for imposing charges, fees, etc., under the cover of “any
expenses”. It is not necessary that such expenses must only relate to
execution of work. It relates to any kind of expenses other than execution
of any work and its meaning cannot be restored only with reference to the
execution of work and the statute must be interpreted pragmatically so as
to ensure that the purpose and the object is met out.
9. Thus, the scope of Sub-section (6) to the amended Section 4B
cannot be restored only with reference to the execution of any work and it
includes any expenses other than the execution of any work and therefore,
the authorities are empowered and the authorities of law has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.433 of 2023
provided by virtue of the amendment made by Act 21 of 2011 dated
25.10.2011 which came into force after the judgment, which is the subject
matter of the present contempt petition. Thus the respondents have not
committed any contempt of Court and accordingly, the contempt petition
stands dismissed.
21.03.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.433 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
(drm)
Cont.P.No.433 of 2023
21.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
