Madras High Court
C.Sanjay Gandhi vs Rajaraman on 19 September, 2014
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: M.Jaichandren, R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Contempt Petition (MD)No.1161 of 2013 and Sub Application Nos.113 and 148 of 2014 AND Review Application (MD)No.68 of 2014 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2014 Contempt Petition (MD)No.1161 of 2013: C.Sanjay Gandhi ... Petitioner/ Appellant Vs. 1.Rajaraman, I.A.S., The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.Pitchappa, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai Revenue Division, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 3.Naganathan, The Special Tahsildar, Highways, Sivagangai. ... Respondents/ Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to summon the respondents and deal with them as per law for having wilfully disobeyed the direction of this Court passed in W.A.(MD)No.986 of 2013, dated 21.10.2013. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj ^For Respondents ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Govt. Pleader Mr.W.Sathasivam, Advocate Commissioner Review Application (MD)No.68 of 2014: 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai Revenue Division, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. ... Petitioners/ Respondents 1 & 2 Vs. 1.C.Sanjay Gandhi ... 1st Respondent/Appellant 2.S.Uthaya Kumar 3.S.Ameenal 4.R.Veerasamy ... Respondents 2 to 4/ Respondents 3 to 5 Prayer Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 21.10.2013 passed in W.A.(MD)No.986 of 2013. For Petitioners ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Govt. Pleader For Respondents ... Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj for R.1 Mr.K.C.Ramalingam for R.2 to R.4 :COMMON ORDER
R.MAHADEVAN,J.
Contempt Petition (MD)No.1161 of 2013 has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to summon the respondents and deal with them as per law for having wilfully disobeyed the direction of this Court passed in W.A.(MD)No.986 of 2013, dated 21.10.2013.
2. Review Application (MD)No.68 of 2014 has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to review the order dated 21.10.2013 passed in W.A.(MD)No.986 of 2013.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred according to their litigative status in the writ appeal.
4. Facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of these petitions, would run thus:
4.1. The writ appellant, who was declared as the highest bidder on 26.07.2012, for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs only), was given extension of time by the authorities for cutting and removing the Velikaruval trees standing in Survey Nos.1-1 to 1-7 and 223-1 to 279-2 of Kattikulam Water Tank at Manamadurai Taluk. The cutting order was issued by proceedings dated 08.11.2012 and the period is upto 09.04.2013. The writ appellant had cut and removed the trees to the tune of 670 Tonnes only upto 10.02.2013 and 210 Tonnes upto 09.03.2013. Thereafter, an extension order dated 30.04.2013 had been passed granting five more months to the writ appellant from 03.05.2013 to 02.10.2013, in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 26.04.2013, passed in W.P(MD)No.6872 of 2013. Challenging the same, the respondents 3 to 5 in the writ appeal, filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.8747 of 2013 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 29.08.2013, had observed thus:
?8. The extension order was passed on 03.05.2013, and the petitioners had cut the trees upto 21.06.2013 and thereafter, by virtue of the Court order, the same was stopped. Even though the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks two months' time this Court has not accepted the same. The petitioners already enjoyed five months' time and subsequently, 49 days by extension. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to grant such a long time. However, taking into consideration the money invested by him and also the period, in which the petitioners were restrained from cutting the trees, further period of one month is enough and within such period, the third respondent is directed to cut and remove the quantum of trees, which are auctioned and the respondents are directed not to grant any further extension of time. The cutting of trees should start immediately after receipt of the order copy of this order and the cutting of trees should be over within one month thereafter.?
4.2. Aggrieved by the same, the writ appellant filed W.A.(MD)No.986 of 2013 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 21.10.2013, had held thus:
?20. On considering the rival contentions raised on behalf of the appellants in the above appeals, we find it appropriate to grant time to the appellant, in W.A.(MD)No.986 of 2013, till 31.12.2013, to cut and remove the trees from the lands in question, as per the confirmation order of the second respondent, dated 08.11.2012, as it has been stated that the appellant had cut and removed the trees, upto 880 tonnes. Therefore, the appellant would be entitled to cut and remove the balance tonnage of trees, which is about 1311 tonnes approximately. It is made clear that the said appellant would be entitled to cut only 1311 tonnes of Velikaruval trees, from the lands in question, as per the order of the second respondent, even though he was granted time till 31.12.2013, for the cutting and removing of trees in question. It is for the first and second respondents to ensure that the appellant, in W.A.(MD)No.986 of 2013, does not cut and remove more than the specified tonnage of trees, as permitted by this Court, by this order. No further extension shall be granted, on any ground, to the appellant in W.A.(MD)No.986 of 2013, without further permission of this Court.?
4.3. Alleging that the official respondents had violated the judgment of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.986 of 2013, the writ appellant filed Contempt Petition (MD)No.1161 of 2013.
4.4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the Contempt Petition, the first respondent contended that the writ appellant had cut and removed 2191 tonnes of trees and the officials had prevented the writ appellant from cutting and removing the trees more than the quantum specified. According to him, the writ appellant had already cut and removed 2191 tonnes of trees as on 27.09.2013, however, the same had not been brought to the notice of this Court, even before the disposal of the writ appeals on 21.10.2013. He further contended that the tonnage was calculated approximately, by considering the capacity of the lorries in which the trees had been transported and that neither any receipt for the removal of the trees was issued to the bidder nor any counter signatures of the bidder were obtained in the Register maintained by the Village Administrative Officer concerned.
4.5. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the writ appellant had taken a stand that if the writ appellant had already cut and removed the trees to the tune of 2191 tonnes even before the disposal of the writ appeal, the same could have been informed to this Court, but, the respondents failed to do so and that it is only an afterthought on the part of the respondents.
4.6. Seeking to review the judgment passed in W.A.(MD)No.986 of 2013, the official respondents filed the Review Application (MD)No.68 of 2014.
5. Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj, learned Counsel for the writ appellant contended that the respondents/contemnors had restrained the writ appellant from cutting and removing the trees as directed by this Court in the writ appeal and that the writ appellant could not cut and remove the trees well within the period specified by this Court and that the writ appellant had been put to irreparable monetary loss. Therefore, he prayed for appropriate action as against the official respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in the writ appeal.
6. Per contra, Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader for the official respondents, submitted that the writ appellant had cut and removed the trees more than the quantum specified and thereafter only, the cutting of trees was stopped and that the official respondents had not violated the judgment of this Court passed in the writ appeal. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the contempt petition.
7. In the review application filed by the State, Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader contended that the writ appellant had cut and removed 1440 tonnes of trees against the permitted quantum of 1311 tonnes and that the said fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court, as the counter affidavit had been filed on 04.06.2013. Further, he argued that the writ appellant had already cut and removed the entire quantum of 2191 tonnes of trees as on 27.09.2013 and therefore, the extension of time so as to enable the writ appellant to further cut and remove 1311 tonnes of trees, would not be sustainable in law. Hence, he prayed for reviewing the judgment of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.986 of 2013.
8. Whereas Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the writ appellant contended that this Court had considered the issue in detail and extended the time till 31.12.2013 to cut and remove the trees and that the official respondents having failed to comply with the judgment of this Court, now, raised allegation against the writ appellant as though he had cut and removed the entire quantum of trees and that in order to avoid the contempt proceedings, the review application had been filed and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the review application.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, including the order passed in the writ appeal and the original records as well.
10. This Court, by order dated 05.06.2014, passed in Contempt Petition (MD)No.1161 of 2013, appointed Thiru.W.Sathasivam, M.A., B.L., a Retired District Judge, as a Commissioner to inspect the area concerned, make enquiries with the contempt petitioner, the Panchayat officials including the President as well as various forest revenue officials, for finding out the actual tonnage of trees that have been cut and removed by the contempt petitioner so far.
11. Pursuant to the same, the Advocate Commissioner, filed his report dated 24.04.2014 before this Court and the relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:
"Based on the oral submissions, written submission and physical inspection of the Kanmai, I conclude that both the petitioner and the respondents have agreed on cutting and removing 880 tonnes. However for the balance 1311 tonnes, no material evidence to support the petitioner cutting and removing the trees have been provided by the respondents. The onus of providing the material evidence rests with the revenue authority. Had the revenue authorities followed strictly the point 6 of the cutting order, which lays down very clearly the modus operandi to be followed, this litigation could have been avoided."
12. In the objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the respondents submitted that though the Advocate Commissioner found that no materials were placed before him, the respondents had placed the records maintained by the Village Administrative Officer to establish that the writ appellant had already cut and removed 2191 tonnes of trees and hence, the said finding is contrary to the factual details. Moreover, the Advocate Commissioner had not at all considered the GPRS Survey Calculation Report submitted by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai; the Divisional Forest Officer (Social Forestry) Sivagangai and the Assistant Engineer (PWD), WRO, Saruganiyar, on 26.06.2013 and 01.07.2013. Further, the Panchayat Presidents concerned, had filed the objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, denying the findings arrived at by him.
13. However, a mere reading of the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, makes it apparent that neither the writ appellant nor the Government had maintained any concrete records to establish as to how much quantum of trees had been cut and removed by the writ appellant.
14. We also find it from the original records, which were placed before us, that there is not even any signatures obtained either from the driver of the lorries or from the Government officials, who were there at the relevant point of time and therefore, it could not be stated that the writ appellant had cut and removed this much of trees and not more than that.
15. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that both the parties failed to maintain the records to prove their case and in such an event, as rightly found by the Advocate Commissioner, there are no material evidences placed before us to hold in favour of the writ appellant. It is, no doubt, clear that the writ appellant had been granted extension of time by this Court for cutting and removing the trees beyond the period specified, but, the writ appellant had not chosen to fulfil his obligation in time, which resulted in this litigation.
16. It is a well settled position of law that the disputed questions of fact could only be established before the appropriate civil forum, based on the evidences, both the oral as well as documentary and this Court cannot decide on such disputes, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. Considering the rival submissions and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to direct the parties to approach the civil Court for redressal of their grievance, in the absence of any material evidences to arrive at a conclusion in the case on hand. Further, the writ appellant as well as the official respondents, are at liberty to put forth their case before the civil Court, in the manner known to law.
18. With the above observations, the Contempt Petition as well as the Review Application, stand closed. Consequently, the connected sub applications and the miscellaneous petition are closed. No costs.
To
1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai Revenue Division, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The Special Tahsildar, Highways, Sivagangai.