Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the 1st Respondent/Petitioner/Appellant as a Power of Attorney Agent of L.Narayanan and 3 others filed Criminal Contempt Petition under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 before the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam in E.A.Nos.11, 12 and 20 of 2003 in E.P.No.5 of 2001 in O.S.No.85 of 1985 praying the said Court to refer the matter to the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, Madurai Bench for initiating Criminal Contempt against Thiru.Venkatesan, Tahsildar, Ponnamaravathy Taluk and 9 others for the wilful and patent violation of the execution proceeding on 14.09.2009 by the Respondents 1, 5 and 6 therein and subsequently, on 22.09.2009 by the 10th Respondent and on 11.01.2010 by the Respondents 1 to 9 in E.A.Nos.11 & 12 of 2003 in E.P.No.5 of 2001 in O.S.No.85 of 1985 pending on the file of the trial Court.

13.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam has referred the matter to this Court by letter in D.No.894/2010 dated 22.07.2010 and that the Hon'ble High Court has taken further action on the said Criminal Contempt Petition referred to by the trial Court in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Rules to regulate proceedings for Contempt of Subordinate Courts and of the High Court.

14.Further, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner/Hon'ble High Court, on the administrative side, has taken a view that the subject matter in issue was not a fit case for initiating contempt proceedings and the 1st Respondent/Petitioner was informed about this by the Registrar (Administration)/Public Information Officer, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai in Roc.No.467/2010/ RTI/MB and Roc.No.130/2011/RTI/MB dated 15.03.2011.

15.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner takes a plea that not content with the reply sent by the Registrar (Administration)/ Public Information Officer, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court as referred to supra, the 1st Respondent/Petitioner projected fresh Petitions dated 01.08.2011 and 18.08.2011 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 requesting supply of the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court in the Contempt Petition filed by him, for which, the Registrar (Administration)/Public Information Officer, Madurai has given a reply on 18.10.2011 in Roc.No.411 & 430/ 2011/RTI/MB to the effect that his request for certain information is negatived as per Clauses 8(e) and (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

20.In short, a reading of the contents of Affidavit in Criminal Contempt Petition No. of 2010 filed by the Petitioners through their Power of Attorney Agent, R.M.Subramanian, in E.A.Nos.11, 12 & 20 of 2003 in E.P.No.5 of 2001 in O.S.No.85 of 1985 on the file of trial Court clearly point out that the Petitioners have mentioned that all the Respondents have taken totally belligerent stand against judicial forums without regard to the rule of law and the principles of constitutional governance and therefore, the trial Court referred the matter to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for initiating Criminal Contempt against the contemnors/Respondents for wilful and patent violation of execution proceedings on 14.09.2009 by the Respondents 1, 5, 6 and subsequently on 22.09.2009 by the 10th Respondent and on 11.01.2010 by the Respondents 1 to 9 in E.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 2003 in E.P.No.5 of 2001 in O.S.No.85 of 1985. Also that the Petitioners in Criminal Contempt Petition No. of 2010 in E.A.Nos.11, 12 & 20 of 2003 in E.P.No.5 of 2001 in O.S.No.85 of 1985 on the file of the trial Court has, in paragraph 5, through a Power Agent, have categorically mentioned that W.P.No.11173 of 2009 was filed praying for the relief of mandamus directing the 10th Respondent/ Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai to appear in person on the spot and to provide a protection which requires strength of police and this Court, on 04.11.2009, in para 5 of its order, made the following observation: