Madras High Court
Thondiraj vs Baskaran on 26 August, 2020
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
Contempt Petition (MD)No. 284 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 26.08.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Contempt Petition.(MD)No. 284 of 2020
in
W.P.(MD)No.4864 of 2018
Thondiraj ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Baskaran, I.A.S,
Director of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.Rajan,
Regional Director of Municipal Administration,
294, Melakkal Main Road,
Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016.
3.K.Malathi,
Municipal Commissioner,
Karaikudi Municipality,
Mudiyarasan Salai,
Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, to punish the contemnors/respondents for contempt for willfully
disobeying the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.4864 of 2018, dated
07.08.2019.
1/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
Contempt Petition (MD)No. 284 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanakumar
For R1 : Mr.C.Ramesh,
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.P.Mahendran,
Standing Counsel.
ORDER
The Contempt Petition has been filed for alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 07.08.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.4864 of 2018.
2. This Court passed an order dated 07.08.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No. 4864 of 2018. This Court has passed the following directions :
“5. By considering the submissions made on both sides, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 29.08.2016 and pass appropriate orders, by taking note of the orders passed in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (3) CTC 119, (Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others), within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.2/5
http://www.judis.nic.in Contempt Petition (MD)No. 284 of 2020
6. It is open to the petitioner to approach the authority for seeking the subsistence allowance or other relief if permissible under law.
7. With the above observations and directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
3.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that the respondent has complied with the order dated 07.08.2019, thereby rejecting the the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.7161 of 2020, challenging the impugned order 02.02.2020. As regards the subsistence allowance, this Court has not passed any positive direction. He further submitted that based on the petitioner's representation, 75% of the subsistence allowance has been paid to the petitioner.
4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, arrears has not been paid to the petitioner. Hence, the first respondent has not complied with the order of this Court.
3/5http://www.judis.nic.in Contempt Petition (MD)No. 284 of 2020
5.On perusal of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, there is no specific direction granted for the payment of the subsistence allowance or for any arrears. Therefore, the present Contempt Petition is not maintainable. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he should challenge the same by way of filing the appropriate Writ Petition or to approach the Authority concerned under due process of law.
6.In view of the above, the Contempt Petition is closed.
26.08.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No das Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
4/5http://www.judis.nic.in Contempt Petition (MD)No. 284 of 2020 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
das Contempt Petition.(MD)No. 284 of 2020 26.08.2020 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in