IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04/08/2005 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKENDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA W.A.M.P.No.2784 of 2005 in Writ Appeal No.1504 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.12981 of 2005 in Contempt Appeal No.18 of 2005 :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
The Honourable The Chief Justice)
The above writ appeal has been taken up along with the Contempt Appeal
No. 18 of 2005.
2. The above writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 22.3.2004 passe
No.7023 of 2004.
3. Heard Mr. R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant. The impugned order dated 22.3.2004 of the learned single Judge
only directs that the representation of the writ petitioner (first respondent
in this appeal) dated 16.1.2004 should be decided by the District Collector,
Chennai, within a reasonable time. It appears that subsequently a contempt
petition being Contempt Petition No.807 of 2004 was filed by the first
respondent alleging that the representation had not been decided despite the
order of the Court dated 22.3.20 04. In that contempt proceeding the learned
single Judge observed as follows:-
” This Court is not satisfied in the way in which the matter has been dragged
on for several years. Counter is also filed by the District Collector, whose
attitude has not been appreciated by this Court for more than one occasion.
This Court is once again directing the District Collector and Tahsildar to
remove the two hoardings at No.112, Chamiers Road, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035
on or before 1.8.2005.”
4. It appears that during the pendency of the Contempt Petition
No.807 of 2004, the District Collector, Chennai, passed an order dated 1
.11.2004 disposing of the petitioner’s representation dated 16.1.2004 by the
following order:
” With reference to your application cited, I have to state that the hoardings
erected by private advertising agencies near your landed property could not be
removed as the Advertising agencies have filed batch of writ petitions before
the Hon’ble High Court of Chennai which are numbered as W.P.No.19056/2003,
19057/2003 etc., totally 10 writ petitions besides a P.I.L. in W.P.No.24154
of 2003 have been filed against the rules and norms fixed by the Government as
per Government of Tamil Nadu Notification dated 4.6.2003 in granting
licenses/renewal of existing licenses to the concerned advertising agencies.
In view of the undertaking given by the learned Advocate General before the
Hon’ble High Court of Chennai in the matter of removal of existing hoarding
which violated the norms/rules prescribed by the Government in the said
notification, no final order could be passed by this office pending the
outcome of the result of the abovesaid writ petitions.
I further wish to state that appropriate action will be taken on your
representation for removing/regularising the said hoardings as soon the above
cases are disposed off.”
5. A perusal of the above order of the District Collector, Chennai,
dated 1.11.2004 shows that the Collector has said that appropriate action will
be taken on the petitioner’s representation dated 16.1.200 4 after the writ
petitions in the High Court referred to in the above order are disposed off.
6. Subsequent to the aforesaid order of the District Collector dated
1.11.2004, the order dated 15.7.2005 in Contempt Petition No.807 of 2004
quoted above has been passed.
7. With profound respect to the learned single Judge, we are of the
opinion that he was not justified in giving a direction to the District
Collector and Tahsildar to remove the two hoardings at No.112, Chamiers Road,
Nandanam, Chennai.
8. In contempt proceedings, the Court can either punish for contempt
or discharge the notice for contempt, but the Court can certainly not give
directions as if it was hearing a writ petition. The scope of a contempt
petition is limited and a Judge cannot go beyond that scope.
9. Mr. R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
submitted that in pursuance of the directions of the learned single Judge
dated 15.7.2005 in Contempt Petition No.807 of 2004, the hoarding of the
appellant has been removed.
10. Since we are of the opinion that the learned Judge in contempt
proceedings could not have given a direction for removal of hoardings, we stay
the operation of the order dated 15.7.2005 passed in Contempt Petition No.807
of 2004 and direct that the status quo ante prevailing prior to the order
dated 15.7.2005 shall be restored. If the appellant’s hoarding was existing
on the date of the order i.e. 15.7.200 5, it shall be restored forthwith.
This order will be subject to further orders in these two connected appeals.
Notice.
Index:Yes.
Internet:Yes.
Vu