Madras High Court
D.Rajendran vs Thiru.T.Rajendran on 17 July, 2014
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.07.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
Cont.P.No.2372 of 2013
in M.P.No.1 of 2013
in W.P.No.16799 of 2013
1. D.Rajendran
2. D.Srinivasan
3. D.Vinukula
4. D.Raghu
5. D.Amarendran
6. D.Rosammal .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. Thiru.T.Rajendran,
Superintending Engineer,
Public Construction Division – II,
Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
2. Thiru.Kaliappan,
Assistant Engineer,
Public Construction Division – II,
Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. Respondents
***
This Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, praying to punish the respondents for having willful disobedience and
disrespect to the order of this Court dated 26.08.2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in
W.P.No.16799 of 2013.
***
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mahimairaj
For Respondents : Mr.P.Gunaraj, Standing Counsel
2
ORDER
The petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking for a direction to restrain the respondents from erecting or putting up any poles or towers for passing or transmitting electricity cables or wires through the petitioners nanja land situated in S.No.179/3B having the extent of 39 cents No.48 in Pandeswaran Village, Saidapet Taluk, Thiruvallur District.
2. When the writ petition came up for admission before me on 26.08.2013, I recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that they would not proceed with the work, pending disposal of the writ petition. However, contrary to the undertaking given, the men employed by the respondents dug two pits. The date on which they dug pits is not very much relevant. But they did not proceed further, due to the aforesaid undertaking.
3. However, this contempt petition is filed complaining that the order of this Court was not complied with due to the digging of the pits.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents gave an undertaking to this Court on 10.10.2013 to close the pits dug for laying two poles. The said undertaking was recorded by this Court as hereunder :
“Learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board has fairly stated that due to the communication gap, the Department has erroneously proceeded to dig the land contrary to the interim order. Learned counsel also has stated that the same would be corrected and the original position would be restored within a period of ten days.
Post on 24.10.2013.” 3
5. As per his undertaking, the pits were closed and a memo dated 22.10.2013 was filed.
6. When the matter came up for hearing on 10.07.2014, the learned counsel for the Electricity Board has brought to my notice the aforesaid memo and requested to close the contempt. He also submitted that the writ petition was dismissed and though writ appeal was preferred against that order, no interim order was granted. Since, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought time to get instructions, the petition was directed to be posted today (17.7.2014). Even today, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a week's time to get clarification from the party.
7. If the writ petition is still pending, I could have given such an opportunity. But the fact remains the writ petition itself is dismissed. It is relevant to take note of the fact that the contempt petition is against my interim order, that was passed, based on the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that after the dismissal of the writ petition on 10.10.2013, the electricity Board put up the poles and the entire work was completed thereafter.
8. In these circumstances, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the contempt petition pending. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue that this Court cannot close the contempt petition and the respondents shall be punished for having violated the order of this Court. He relied on paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Prithawi Nath Ram V. State of Jharkhand and Others, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 261. 4
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
gg
9. Paragraph 9 of the judgment in (2004) 7 SCC 261 is extracted as hereunder:
“9. In a given case, even if ultimately the interim order is vacated or relief in the main proceeding is not granted to a party, the other side cannot take that as a ground for disobedience of any interim order passed by the court.”
10. There can be no quarrel over the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Apex Court. But considering the facts of this case, and more particularly, when the learned counsel for the respondents has admitted that due to communication gap only digging of pits took place and further work was stopped and the same was recorded by this Court on 10.10.2013 and subsequently, a memo was filed to that effect, I am of the view that the respondents have not deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court warranting the initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondents. Hence, I have no hesitation to close the contempt proceedings.
11. Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed.
17.07.2014 gg Index : Yes Internet: Yes Cont.P.No.2372 of 2013