Madras High Court
N.Arumugam vs Rajaraman on 19 October, 2012
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/10/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Cont.P.(MD).No.655 of 2012 in W.P.(MD).No.6244 of 2008 N.Arumugam ... Petitioner Vs. Rajaraman Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34. ... Respondent PRAYER Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), to punish the respondent herein for the willful disobedience of the order made in W.P.(MD).No.6244 of 2008, dated 20.08.2008. !For Petitioner ... Party in person ^For Respondent ... Mr.R.Karthikeyan, AGP :ORDER
******* The petitioner filed the writ petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent from preventing the petitioner from performing his duty as Additional Keelsanthi in the Arulmighu Essakiamman Thirukoil, Muppandal (East), without following due process of law.
2.The writ petition was dismissed. However, it was directed that in case of petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case, his representation be decided.
3.Operative portion of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition reads as follows:-
"For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner has been working in the temple for quite some time, his representation dated 08.08.2008, addressed to the respondents 1 to 3 may be directed to be considered. In this connection, this Court directs that in the event of the criminal case ending in favour of the petitioner, the respondents 1 to 3 shall consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.08.2008 and pass orders in accordance with law.
With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed."
4.It is submitted by the petitioner that though he was acquitted in the criminal case, the respondent has failed to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner.
5.Notice in this Contempt petition was issued.
6.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent has placed on record a copy of the order, dated 08.10.2012, passed by the respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioner.
7.In view of the fact that the order passed by this Court stands complied with, no further proceedings are called for in this Contempt petition. Contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
8.However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the order passed by the respondent, in accordance with law, if so advised. No costs.
ssv To Rajaraman Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.