IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.07.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Contempt Petition No.447 of 2008 and Sub Application No.133 of 2008 A.Abdul Rahman ... Petitioner Vs. P.Dhandapani Special Officer Pudupet Co-operative Society Ltd., No.15, Thulasingam Street Pudupet Chennai - 2 ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent herein for having committed contempt of the court by disobeying the order dated 21.06.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.4753/2006 in W.P.No.4433 of 2006. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sannjay For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramani O R D E R Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.4433/2006 is the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein filed the above said writ petition challenging the auction notice issued by the Pudupet Co-operative Society Limited and publication of the same in Dinamalar newspaper on 10.02.2006. While admitting the writ petition, this court by order dated 17.02.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.4753/2006 in W.P.No.4433/2006 granted a temporary injunction not to bring the property for sale pending disposal of the writ petition. Subsequently, by an order dated 21.06.2006, the said order of interim injunction was made absolute. 3. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner herein contending that in utter disregard of the said order of injunction passed by this court, the respondent again caused the property to be brought for sale in public auction through the acutioneer appointed by the respondent. It is not in dispute that M/s.Guru Santhi Auctioneer, to whom the job of bringing the property for sale for the collection of the amount due to the Society, issued auction notice to the petitioner herein on 22.03.2008. A copy of the pamphlet published for the proposed auction to be held on 14.05.2008 has also been enclosed in the typed set of papers submitted by the petitioner. Pursuant to the publication of auction notice, the advocate for the petitioner seems to have issued a contempt notice to the respondent on 27.03.2008. After the receipt of the above said contempt notice issued by the advocate for the petitioner, the respondent seems to have issued instructions in its letter dated 01.04.2008 instructing the auctioneer not to conduct auction as scheduled in the notice published. 4. Meanwhile, the petitioner, without knowing the said fact seems to have filed the present contempt petition praying that the respondent should be punished for the act of contempt. The respondent has now come forward with the explanation that by inadvertence, they directed the auctioneer to bring the property for sale in public auction and that the said mistake was rectified subsequently by proper instructions to the auctioneer. However, this court is not in a position to accept the said explanation offered by the respondent herein. Knowing fully well that an order of interim injunction was initially passed on 17.02.2006 and that the same was made absolute subsequently, the respondent has chosen to instruct the auctioneer to bring the property for sale. However, consequent to the receipt of the contempt notice issued by the advocate for the petitioner, the respondent seems to have instructed the auctioneer not to proceed further on the auction notice. The mere fact that the respondent, after receipt of contempt notice has chosen to instruct the auctioneer not to bring the property for sale, will not absolve the respondent from the earlier act committed in violation of the order passed by this court. The very attitude of the respondent in not even coming forward with an apology for what he has done is depricable. P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J. asr 5. Therefore, this court is constrained to hold that the act of the respondent in causing the property to be advertised for sale in public auction despite there being an order against it amounts to contempt for which the respondent is liable to be punished. The views of the respondent regarding the punishment to be imposed has also been ascertained and this court gave its considerations to the same. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, this court feels that a nominal fine of Rs.250/- shall be imposed so as to deter like minded persons from committing such acts of contempt. 6. In the result, the contempt petition succeeds. The respondent is held guilty of contempt and punished with imposition of a fine of Rs.250/-. In case of failure to pay the said amount, the respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week. 29.07.2008 Index : Yes Internet : Yes asr Cont. Petn. No.447 of 2008