Madras High Court
C.Jane Margret vs Rt.Rev.Dr.G.Paul Vasanthakumar on 11 October, 2017
Author: P.D.Audikesavalu
Bench: P.D.Audikesavalu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.10.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
CONT.P.(MD)No.1207 of 2013
C.Jane Margret ... Petitioner
Vs.
Rt.Rev.Dr.G.Paul Vasanthakumar,
Bishop,
CSI Tiruchirappalli-Thanjavur Diocese,
Rep by its Secretary,
Diocesan Office,
Puthur, Tiruchirappalli-620 017. ...Respondent
Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, to punish the respondent herein for the willful disobedience of
the orders of this Court made in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013 in W.P.(MD) No.12058
of 2013 dated 26.07.2013.
!For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali
^For Respondent : Mr.Daniel Manoharan
:ORDER
The petitioner has filed W.P.(MD) No.12058 of 2013 challenging the order of transfer of the petitioner from CSI Elementary School, Thiruchirappalli to Avinasipalayam. By an order dated 26.07.2013 in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013 in this writ petition, this Court had granted interim stay to the order of transfer. Alleging the violation of the said interim order the present contempt petition bearing in Cont.P.No.1207 of 2013 has been filed.
2.It is brought to the notice of this Court that the final order has been passed by this Court in the writ petition on 14.07.2014 and the matter was taken on appeal by both sides in W.A.(MD) Nos.978 and 917 of 2014 respectively. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 28.08.2014, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner herein and it is stated as follows:-
?18.On consideration of the materials available before us, we are of he view that the transfer of the writ petitioner cannot be termed as a punitive one and it is only on administrative grounds as claimed by the respondents 1 to 3. we, therefore, observe that the finding of the learned judge in coming to the conclusion that the transfer order is a punitive one, warrant interference by this Court and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside.
19. In the result,
(i)W.A.(MD) No.978 of 2014 filed by the writ petitioner, stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
(ii) W.A.(MD) No.917 of 2014 preferred by the respondents 1 to 3 is allowed as above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed; and
(iii) There shall be no order as to costs in both the writ appeals.?
3.Since the Writ petition has been ultimately dismissed nothing survives for adjudication in the contempt petition and the same is closed. .