THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.1557 OF 2010 Dated: 14.02.2011 Between : C.Fazlur Rahiman …… Petitioner And Mr. Movva Ramalingam and others ……. Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.1557 OF 2010 ORDER : This contempt case is filed alleging violation of an interim order dated 09.11.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.31026 of 2009 in W.P.No.23874 of 2009, which runs as under: “Notice. Post after two weeks. In the meanwhile, there shall be a direction to the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance, to which the petitioner is entitled to as per law. The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent No.4.” It is alleged by the petitioner that in spite of the specific direction by this Court to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner, the respondents failed to do so and the said action amounts to deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court and therefore, they are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.03.2006. However, he refused to receive the said order and applied for casual leave/special casual leave. It is also contended that since the petitioner had refused to receive the suspension order and had been voluntarily going on leave, the suspension order did not come into operation at all and therefore, he is not entitled to claim any subsistence allowance. It is to be noticed that in the main writ petition, the respondents have already filed a counter along with W.V.M.P.No.215 of 2009 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 09.11.2009. Having regard to the fact that the order alleged to be violated is only an interim order and in the main writ petition the respondents have already filed a counter and moreover keeping in view that the entitlement of the petitioner for subsistence allowance is seriously disputed by the respondents, I am not inclined to entertain this contempt case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to canvass his contentions in the writ petition, which is pending. No costs. __________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 14.02.2011 Ivd