Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

R.Barani vs Mr.Karuppusamy on 29 April, 2019

Author: S.M.Subramaniam

Bench: S.M.Subramaniam

                                                               1

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED :29.04.2019

                                                           CORAM

                                       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                             Cont.P.Nos.2629 & 2630 of 2018
                                                           and
                                        Sub.Applications(OS).Nos.695 & 696 of 2018

                      1. R.Barani                                  .. Petitioner in Cont.P.No.2629/2018

                      2. A.Vanitha                                 .. Petitioner in Cont.P.No.2630/2018

                                                             ..Vs..

                      1. Mr.Karuppusamy
                         Director of Elementary Education,
                         DPI Campus, College Road,
                         Chennai – 600006.

                      2. Mr.Munusamy
                         Chief Educational Officer,
                         Villupuram,
                         Villupuram District.

                      3. Ms. Rose Nirmala
                         District Educational Officer,
                         Gingee,
                         Villupuram District.

                      4. Mr.N.Govindarajan
                         Block Educational Officer,
                         Gingee Block,
                         Villupuram District.                         .. Respondents in both Contempts


                      Common Prayer: Contempt Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt
                      of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein for their willful


http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                              2

                      disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 20.11.2018 passed in
                      W.M.P.No.35627 of 2018 in W.P.No.30542 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.35615 of 2018
                      in W.P.No.30532 of 2018 respectively.


                                   For Petitioners      : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy
                                                          (in both Contempts)
                                   For Respondents      : Mrs.P.Kavitha
                                                         (in both Contempts)

                                                         ORDER

The Contempt Petitions are filed to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 20.11.2018 passed in W.M.P.Nos.35627 & 35615 of 2018 in W.P.Nos.30542 & 30532 of 2018.

2.The learned counsel for the Contempt petitioners forcibly contended that the respondents have fabricated the original documents which were relied upon in the present contempt petitions. Thus, the contempt petitions are to be kept pending in spite of the fact that this Court passed an order vacating the interim order of status quo granted by this Court earlier.

3.The learned counsel for the contempt petitioners made a submission that the contempt petitions need not be heard at this point of time and the same are to be kept pending.

http://www.judis.nic.in 3

4. This Court is of the considered opinion that once the interim order of status quo was vacated and the contempt petition was filed for the disobedience of the interim order of status quo, there is no relevance in keeping the contempt petitions pending for an unspecified period.

5. The contempt petitions filed need not be kept pending unnecessarily for an unspecified period. Keeping the contempt petitions pending for a longer period undoubtedly is a concern of the respondents, who are the contemnors. Thus, once the contempt is not made out, the Courts cannot keep the petitions pending unnecessarily like other litigations.

6. This apart, no purpose would be served by keeping the contempt petitions pending after the disposal of the miscellaneous petitions which provided cause for contempt petition.

7. As far as disobedience of the orders of this Court is concerned, the interim order of status quo granted by this Court on 20.11.2018 was vacated. Therefore, the contempt petitions are also to be closed.

8.The learned Government advocate referred the order dated 15.11.2018, where in the contempt petitioner was relieved from Athiyur Aided http://www.judis.nic.in 4 primary school. The order dated 15.11.2018 states that the contempt petitioner was relieved on 15.11.2018 and admittedly interim order of status quo was granted by this Court on 20.11.2018 and therefore, not permitting the contempt petitioner to join in Athiyur, would not amount to disobedience of orders of this Court. Accordingly, both contempt petitions stand closed. No costs. Consequently, connected sub-applications are closed. It is for the parties to adjudicate other issues in the main writ petition.

29.04.2019 Pns Index:Yes Internet:Yes Speaking order http://www.judis.nic.in 5 To

1. Mr.Karuppusamy Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600006.

2. Mr.Munusamy Chief Educational Officer, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

3. Ms. Rose Nirmala District Educational Officer, Gingee, Villupuram District.

4. Mr.N.Govindarajan Block Educational Officer, Gingee Block, Villupuram District.

http://www.judis.nic.in 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.

Pns Contempt Petition Nos.2629 & 2630 of 2018 29.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in