HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE Nos.898 AND 899 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Alleging violation of the order of status quo passed by this Court on 4.6.2010, the contempt cases are filed. The case of the petitioner is that, on 16.6.2010, a road was laid in front of his house which is in violation of the order passed by this Court on 4.6.2010. Sri N.V.Ananthakrishna, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, on 16.6.2010, the petitioner had issued a telegram informing the respondent – officials that their action in proceeding to lay road was in violation of the order of this Court and would amount to contempt. According to the learned counsel, since the respondents have chosen to remain silent, it must be deemed that the contents of the telegram have been accepted by them. Learned counsel would draw attention of this Court to certain photographs, wherein the date is recorded as 16.6.2010, in support of his submission that the road was, indeed, laid only on that day. At the request of the petitioner’s counsel this Court had directed the respondents to produce the ‘M’ books. A copy thereof was already shown to the counsel for the petitioner. After perusal of the ‘M’ books concerned Sri N.V.Ananthakrishna, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, while the ‘M’ book records laying of the road, on three sides, prior to 16.6.2010, it is silent with regards the road laid in front of the petitioner’s house . On the other hand, the Learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings would submit that the respondents have not violated the orders of this Court; the road was laid much prior to 16.6.2010; and, after coming to know of the order of this Court dated 4.6.2010, the respondents have not violated the order. While the submission of Sri N.V.Ananthakrishna, Learned Counsel for the petitioner does create a suspicion and gives rise to a doubt as to whether the road in front of the petitioner’s house was, indeed, laid on or after 16.6.2010, it must be borne in mind that the degree of proof required to hold a person guilty of contempt is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion or doubt would not suffice to proceed against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act or to hold them guilty of contempt. Failure on the part of the respondents to reply to the telegram or the date shown in digital photographs is not sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents have willfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court. I see no reason, therefore, to proceed against the respondents for Contempt of Court. Both the contempt cases are, accordingly, dismissed. __________ 28-4-2011 asp