Madras High Court
G.Gokulakrishnan vs Mr.Sadhasivan on 10 March, 2015
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 10.03.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Cont.P.No.599 of 2014 G.Gokulakrishnan .. Petitioner Versus 1.Mr.Sadhasivan, The Divisional Engineer, TANGEDCO, Dindivanam 2.Mr.Sampath The Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Sendur, Villupuram District. 3.Mr.Anil Kumar The Assistant Engineer (O&M), TANGEDCO, Mailam, Villupuram District. .. Respondents Prayer: This Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 70/71 to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order dated 20.08.2013 and made in W.P.No.22892 of 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondent : Mr.Varun Kumar Standing Counsel for TNEB O R D E R
Alleging non compliance of the order made in W.P.No.22892 of 2012, dated 20.08.2013, the present contempt petition has been filed.
2. On the averments made in support of the contempt petition, Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that four poles were directed to be removed from the land belonging to the petitioner. But the respondents have removed only three poles. One pole still remains in the land of the petitioner. While shifting the electric poles, they have also caused damage to the casuarina trees to the extent of Rs.2 Lakhs.
3. When the matter came up for hearing, Mr.M.Varunkumar, learned counsel for the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, was directed to take notice.
4. In response to the averments, made in support of the contempt Petition, the Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Tindivanam has filed a counter affidavit denying the contention of the petitioner that due to shifting of the poles, the contempt petitioner suffered damages to the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs. He has also submitted that all the four poles, as directed by this Court have been removed from the place owned by the petitioner. However, the matter stood adjourned for ascertaining the correct position on field.
5. Reverting back Mr.Varunkumar, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the compliance report stating that all the four poles have been removed. The 4th pole has been installed on the bund and in so far as that site is concerned, it appears that there is a dispute between the contempt petitioner and his neighbour. He also brought to the notice of this Court that for installing the 4th pole, neighbour has objected.
6. Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the contempt petitioner submitted that the place of installation of the 4th pole continues to remain, in the place owned by the contempt petitioner.
7. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it could be deduced that there is a dispute over the place in which the 4th pole has been installed and the said dispute has to be worked out only before the concerned Court. As such from the S.MANIKUMAR.J, ars conduct of the respondents, it could not be deduced that there is no willful disobedience in violating the orders made in W.P.No.22892 of 2012 dated 20.08.2013. Hence, this Contempt Petition is closed. Contemnors are purged out of the contempt proceedings. No Costs.
10.03.2015 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ars
Cont.P.No.599 of 2014