Madras High Court
The General Manager vs R. Murali on 9 July, 2021
Author: D. Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
Cont. Petn. 1960 of 2014 etc. batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 09.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Cont. Petn. No.1960, 1961, 1962, 1963,1964,
1965,1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and1970, of 2014
Cont. Petn. No.1960 of 2014
The General Manager,
Salem District Co-operative Milk Producers
Union Limited, Sithanur,
Thalavaipatty Post, Salem 636 302. ... Petitioner
Vs.
R. Murali ... Respondent
PRAYER in Cont.Petn. No.1960 of 2014: Contempt Petition filed
under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the
respondent for filing a suit in O.S.No.71 of 2014 on the file of the
District Munsif, Salem by willfully suppressing the pendency of
W.P.No.12997 of 2013 before this court.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Cont. Petn. 1960 of 2014 etc. batch
In all the contempt petitions
For petitioner : Mr.V.Venkatesan
COMMON ORDER
This contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioner to punish the respondents for filing the respective original suits before the District Munsif, Salem by willfully suppressing the pendency of W.P.No.12997 to 13007 of 2013 before this court. Since the issues involved these contempt petitions are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had appointed various persons / allottees including the respondents to run the Aavin Parlours with a specific condition that only Aavin Milk and Milk products shall be sold in the Aavin Parlours. But, since the allottees including the respondents had violated the above condition, the petitioner had passed orders on 04.04.2012 cancelling the order of allotment. Challenging the above said order, the allottees have filed W.P.Nos.12786 to 12798 of 2012 Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Cont. Petn. 1960 of 2014 etc. batch before this court. In the meanwhile, the Corporation council had passed a resolution No.216 dated 29.10.2012, cancelling the permission granted in favour of the allottees to run the Aavin parlours.
2.1. He further contended that, this court vide order dated 21.03.2013 had set aside the order of cancellation of licence passed by the petitioner and had directed the petitioner to pass order, after considering the explanation submitted by the respondent.
2.2. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in compliance of the orders passed by this court, the petitioner had passed detailed order of cancellation of allotment on 18.04.2013, by considering all the aspects. Challenging the above said order and the resolution of the Corporation dated 29.10.2012, the respondents have filed W.P.No.12997 to 13007 of 2013 before this court and interim stay was granted on 26.01.2013. The petitioner as well as Corporation of Salem, have filed counter affidavits and also vacate stay petition. All the parties were heard by this court and orders were reserved on 03.10.2013. While that being so, the respondents Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Cont. Petn. 1960 of 2014 etc. batch have filed the respective suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein and the Corporation from evicting them from the suit property forcibly, unless under due process of law. In that suits, interim injunctions were also granted. However, the respondents have not disclosed anything about the pendency of the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.12997 to 13007 of 2013 before this court. Hence, this contempt petition.
3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition as against the respondents and the respondents have filed the respective suits before the District Munsif, Salem, prima facie, it shows that no materials has been placed to satisfy this court that the contempt petition is maintainable, as against the civil suits filed by the respondents. Further, no case is made out against the respondents for willfull disobedience of the orders passed in the writ petitions in W.P.No.1297 to 13007 of 2013 by this court. Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Cont. Petn. 1960 of 2014 etc. batch
4. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to seek appropriate remedy, either before this court in the above said writ petitions in w.P.No.12997 to 13007 of 2013 or before the concerned court in the above suits in O.S.No.70 to 79 & 81 of 2014, or challenge the above said suits in the manner known to law.
5. With the above observations, this contempt petition is closed.
09.07.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/non Speaking order mst Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Cont. Petn. 1960 of 2014 etc. batch D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mst Cont.Petn. No.1960 to 1970 of 2014 09.07.2021.
Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/