1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (CONTEMPT JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA CONTEMPT PETITION NO.672 OF 2006 ************ K.Tulasi, W/o.Late Kuppusamy, No.1214,63rd Street, Korattur, Chennai. ... Petitioner Vs Sankaranarayanan, Execute Engineer/Administrative Officer, Anna Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Tirumangalam,Chennai – 101. ... Respondent Contempt Petition praying that this Court be pleased to punish the respondent herein for his wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 03/08/2006 and made in W.P.No.24601 of 2006. The above Contempt Petition coming on this day before this Court for hearing in the presence of Mr.P.Wilson, Additional Advocate General for the respondent herein; and the petitioner having not appeared in person or by advocate; and upon reading the petition and affidavit of K.Tulasi, filed herein; and the Counter Affidavit of S.Sankaranarayanan, filed herein; Court made the following order:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 This contempt petition is filed seeking to punish the respondent for his wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 3.8.2006 passed in W.P.No.24601 of 2006. 2.Counsel for the petitioner called absent. However, the learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared for the respondent, produced a copy of the fresh order dated 17.2.2009 passed by the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, containing the reasons for rejecting the original representation of the petitioner herein, as mandated by this Court earlier and it appears, according to the learned counsel for the Housing Board, that the said order also was communicated to the other side so as to enable him to challenge the same in the way known to law. 3.The learned Additional Advocate General for the Housing Board would express and expatiate that there was no wilful default on the part of the respondent in violating the Court order. This Court, vide order dated 3.8.2006 in W.P.No.24601 of 2006 issued the following direction: "On the face of the order, which is impugned in the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot stand to judicial scrutiny, wherein the representation of the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 dated 19.7.2006, which has been filed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, has been abruptly rejected, by saying that the application is rejected, without giving any reason. 2.Therefore, by putting the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on notice, the order impugned is hereby set aside as it is an ex facie illegal order and passed without application of mind and without giving any reasons, whatsoever. However, the matter is remitted back to the third respondent to reconsider the issue and apply its mind in each and every point raised by the petitioner in their representation dated 19.7.2006 and record a finding as to the points raised and pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order." Even though the learned counsel for the Housing Board appeared before the Court at the time of the said order being passed in the writ petition, nonetheless the learned counsel failed to communicate the same in time. However, it appears, the delivery of possession was handed over to the Housing Board by the petitioner. In view of the order passed on 3.8.2006, the petitioner has chosen to file this contempt petition as though the Housing Board highhandedly violated the order of this Court. There is nothing to demonstrate and display that by using force the contempt petitioner was evicted. However, in strict compliance with the order dated 3.8.2006 of this Court, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 present order dated 17.2.2009 has been passed by the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rejecting the representation dated 19.7.2006 by citing reasons. Hence, in these circumstances, I could see no wilful contempt on the part of the Housing Board in violating the order of this Court dated 3.8.2006. However, the Executive Officer of the Housing Board, in his affidavit, expressed his unconditional apology also. Hence, in this factual matrix, I would like to close the contempt petition recording the above order dated 17.2.2009. Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru HEMANT LAXMAN GOKHALE, The Chief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, this the 11th day of March, 2009. SD/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2009. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 Cns. CONTEMPT PETITION No.672/2006 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA ORDER DATED : 11/03/2009 FOR APPROVAL :25/03/2009 APPROVED ON :25/03/2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/