1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (CONTEMPT JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH CONTEMPT PETITION No.1116 of 2009 ************ B.Mohamad Shibli, S/o.Abdul Latiff, No.18, Kundankulam Street, Muthupettai Town, Thiruthurai Poondi Taluk, Thiruvarur District. ... Petitioner Vs 1)Sripathy, The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2)Chandrasekaran, The District Collector, Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur Districtr. 3)Praveen Kumar Abinav, The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District. ... Respondents Contempt Petition praying that this Court be pleased to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 26/08/2009 and made in W.P.No.17277 of 2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 The above Contempt Petition coming on this day before this Court for hearing in the presence of M/s.V.Kasinatha Bharathi, Advocate for the petitioner herein; and of Mr.R.Thirugnanam, Special Government Pleader for the respondents herein; and upon reading the petition and affidavit of Mohamad Shibli, filed herein; and the counter affidavit of M.Chandrasekaran, filed herein; the Court made the following order:- This contempt application is filed under sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No.70 of 1971) praying to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order dated 26.08.2009 made in Writ Petition No.17277 of 2009. 2. A public interest litigation was filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to find out a new route for Vinayagar procession in Muthupettai, based on the representation dated 19.08.2009 and the new route pointed out by the petitioner. The petitioner also made available the sketch of alternate route prepared by him, along with writ petition, which has been referred to in the order of the Division Bench. In order to have clarity, we extract the paragraphs 4 to 6 of the order of the Division Bench : " 4. A sketch is also annexed to this petition at page 36 of the typed set of papers, wherein the route through which the procession was taken out https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 last year is shown. Mr. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that on this route, there are about nine to ten mosques and there have been disturbances whenever the procession has been passing by the side of these mosques. An alternative route has been suggested by the petitioner, which finds place at page 37 of the typed set. In this sketch suggesting the alternative route, which is not far away from the earlier one, there are only three mosques by the side of which the procession will be passing. It is submitted that this alternative route has been suggested to the Chief Secretary in the petitioner's representation dated 19.08.2009 and in view of the urgency involved, this writ petition has been filed on the next day. 5. Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents accepts that there have been disturbances in the past. He also points out that the roads in the said town are rather narrow and all attempts by the law enforcing agencies on earlier occasions have met with some difficulty or the other at different junctions through which the procession is taken out. He further submits that except for the occasion of this procession, the relationship https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 between different communities in the town is cordial. He, therefore, submits that there is a case for consideration of the alternative route suggested by the petitioner for taking out the procession this year. 6. In view of what is recorded above, in our view, the fifth respondent-District Collector, Thiruvarur and the sixth respondent-Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur ought to examine this suggestion of the petitioner for adopting an alternative route in all seriousness so as to avoid any eventuality at the time of the Vinayagar procession taken out for immersion of the Vinayagar idols, which is scheduled to be taken out this year on Wednesday, the 2nd of September, 2009. The District Collector will convene a meeting of all concerned and impress upon them the desirability of adopting this alternative route so that any disturbance does not take place. Ultimately, it is only a few persons who create such disturbance and there are a number of innocent persons who suffer, including loss to their properties. It is the responsibility of the Revenue and the Police Administration to see to it that the lives and properties of the citizens are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 protected and from this point of view, any proposal meant to avoid the occurrence of any such eventuality in future must be considered in all its seriousness. In the event of such alternative route being accepted, the Administration should take steps to see to it that strict action is taken against persons who create trouble during the procession or in any manner otherwise." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the direction, a meeting was convened by the District Administration and suggestion put forth by the petitioner by way of sketch has not been accepted, but the respondents allowed the procession in yet another alternate route and as such they have not complied with the direction issued by this Court. On that premise, the contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondents for having committed deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 26.08.2009, a meeting was convened on 28.08.2009 at the Collectorate, Tiruvarur separately with the representatives of Muslim community and the organisers of the Vinayakar procession. The District Collector explained in detail about the directions and the necessity of finding the alternate route for Vinayakar procession to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 avoid clash between the two parties in Muthupettai. During the meeting the representatives of Muslim community insisted that the route suggested by the petitioner, viz., Thillavilakam, Jambuvanodai Sivan Koil, via, Azad Nagar, Muthupettai old bus stand, Mannargudi Road, Muthupettai bye pass road and Pamani Bridge at Sembadavankadu had to be accepted for the ensuing procession on 02.09.2009, whereas the organisers of Vinayakar procession negatived the alternative route suggested by the petitioner saying that the new route is longer than the old route and covered a distance of 7.6 km in which there was no habitation for about 2 km. As there was no mutually acceptable solution arrived at between the parties on the alternative route suggested by the petitioner, the District Collector, in consultation with the Superintendent of Police, and keeping in view the various meetings conducted in this regard, decided to adopt a route that starts from Thillavalagam, Jambuvanodai Sivankoil and passing through Azad Nagar Junction, Muthupettai old bus stand, Pattukottai main road, Sembadavankadu and to end in pamani river bridge. According to the respondents, the new alternative route was found to be the best alternative route, as it would avoid Pettai road, the densely populated residential locality of muslims which was in the route hitherto followed; it would avoid passage of procession through two important mosques, namely Kuttiyar Pallivasal and Arabu Sahbi Pallivasal and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 hence communal tension will be reduced; it is the main and shortest road to the immersion point. The said decision was taken for smooth conduct of procession and not otherwise as suggested by the petitioner. The narrow stretch of Pettai road in which the procession used to be taken for the last 16 years was not allowed in the year 2009 and procession was allowed only on the main road from the old bus stand to Pamini river through Pattukottai road. The respondents, keeping in mind that any untoward incident may take place, took a decision to allow the procession in the alternate route, as stated above. 5. It is further stated that the vinayakar procession was allowed through Muthupettai old bus stand and pattukottai high road in which all vehicles, all buses are plying usually. After taking into consideration the security aspect and to ensure public peace, the procession was allowed in the above route. The procession was allowed in the above route in order to avoid some portion of the Muthupettai Road, where majority of the muslims of the town are living and also to avoid the usual immersion point. The procession went on peacefully, barring some minor instances for which case has been registered and action has been taken against the persons indulged in the incident. The old route of Mutupettai road was avoided, which is vulnerable area. 6. Along with the counter, the respondents have filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8 three sketches – (1) showing the route in which procession was taken hitherto; (2) showing the route suggested by the petitioner; (3) showing the route in which the procession was allowed to be taken. In all the sketches, the starting point is one and the same, but in the route through which hitherto procession was taken, there are as many as 8 mosques from the starting point to the immersion point. Now, as suggested by the petitioner, the immersion point has been changed so as to avoid nearly six mosques. As per the petitioner's suggestion, half of the route is in the bye pass road. Even in that route suggested by the petitioner, three mosques are there. The route in which the procession was allowed is almost the same barring Mannargudi road and Muthupettai bye-pass road. As stated earlier, the immersion point suggested by the petitioner was accepted, which avoided as many as four mosques. The reason given in the counter for revised route and the immersion point of the vinayakar by the respondents manifestly make it clear that the respondents have taken all necessary and reasonable steps to avoid tension and untoward incident. Just because the alternate route suggested by the petitioner has not been accepted in toto, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately violated the order of the Court. The minor deviation of the route suggested by the petitioner was made only on the ground that the route suggested by the petitioner was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9 longer in distance than the route in which procession was now allowed. The rest of the route was as suggested by the petitioner, including the immersion point. The district administration is more conscious about the maintenance of peace, law and order in the district and it has, to the best of its ability, taken into consideration the ground reality and has carved out an alternate route. The petitioner cannot impose or dictate terms on the district administration, which is well advised than anyone-else. The action of the respondents, in our view, cannot at any stretch of imagination, be regarded as one deliberately and contumaciously flouting the order of the Court in order to haul them up for contempt. 7. While dealing with the application for contempt, the court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. The Court cannot expand or go beyond the order of the Court. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. (vide Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV, 2006 AIR SCW 342 and K.G. Derasari v. Union of India, 2001 (10) SCC 496.) 8. In the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly,(2002) 5 SCC 352, the apex Court explained the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10 contempt jurisdiction as follows : "The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of court is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11 9. The weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Power to punish for contempt of Court is to be exercised for maintenance of the court’s dignity and majesty of law. Further, an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemner and the court. (vide R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik , (2000) 4 SCC 400). 10. For the reasons stated above and in the light of the judgments cited supra, the contempt petition is closed. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru HEMANT LAXMAN GOKHALE, the Chief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, this the 25th day of November, 2009. Sd/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of February, 2010. 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/ 12 SMV CONTEMPT PETITION No.1116/2009 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH ORDER DATED : 25/11/2009 FOR APPROVAL :10/02/2010 APPROVED ON :11/02/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/