IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.09.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Contempt Petition No.887 of 2008 and Sub Application No.294 of 2008 R.Elumalai ... Petitioner Vs. 1.M.Chelladurai Secretary Housing & Urban Development Dept. Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2.Mr.T.N.Ramanathan The Chairman & Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam Chennai 600 035 3.Jayapal Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Thirumangalam Chennai 600 040 4.Senthil Kumar Inspector of Police Thirumangalam Police Station Anna Nagar Chennai 600 040 ... Respondents Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the inteirm order of this Hon'ble court dated 28.02.2007 made in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.7289 of 2007. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilnathan O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
2. The petitioner herein filed a writ petition W.P.No.7289 of 2007 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Anna Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 101 relating to his notice dated 05.02.2007 in letter No.ANAKO/survey/0211/06 and quash the same. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner had also filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in the said writ petition praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from proceeding with the further demolition pursuant to the above demolition notice dated 05.02.2007 till disposal of the writ petition. When the matter came up for admission, as it was informed to the court that the demolition had already been carried out and subsequent to the demolition, the petitioner had put up a hut, the learned judge besides ordering notice to the respondents therein, granted an interim injunction not to demolish the hut put up by the petitioner. The said order was passed on 28.02.2007. Subsequently, the same was extended until further orders by order dated 08.03.2007.
3. Contending that after the demolition work was completed by the Housing Board authorities pursuant to the demolition notice, the petitioner had put up a hut leaving 6 feet passage on the eastern side of the property for his personal use; that after the order of injunction was passed by this court, the respondents 1 and 2 acting in aid of respondents 3 and 4 trespassed into the petitioner’s property and re-laid the stones on the above said 6 feet passage left by the petitioner for his personal use treating the same as a common passage and that thereby, the respondents have committed gross violation of the order of injunction granted by this court in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.7289 of 2007, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition.
4. Though the order passed by this court on 28.02.2007 and extended until further orders on 08.03.2007 is to the effect that the hut put up by the petitioner after the demolition work was carried out by the Housing Board authorities and before the said order was passed should not be demolished, the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced an argument as if this court has granted an order not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property concerned in the writ petition. When the scope of the order was pointed out by this court, the learned counsel contended that though there was no specific order not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and the injunction order was confined to the apprehended demolition of the hut, in fact the respondents 1 and 2 demolished a portion of the hut and formed a road. The said arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally contra to the averments found in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition.
5. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that 6 feet passage on the eastern side of the property had been left vacant by the petitioner for his personal use and the respondents have re-laid the stones using bulldozer encompassing that 6 feet passage also treating the same as a common passage. The said averment found in paragraph 6 itself will make it abundantly clear that no portion of the hut has been demolished and the 6 feet wide passage claimed by the petitioner to be the open space left by him for his exclusive use alone has been used by the respondents to lay the road. The present petition filed by the petitioner for contempt is on a misconception of the scope of the order passed by this court. Apart from that, while submitting his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt at the first instance, to interpret the order of this court as if the order was not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the entire property which is the subject matter of the writ petition. At the second instance, an attempt was made to show that a portion of the hut was demolished. The same is not supported by the affidavit filed by the petitioner. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to the conclusion that the contempt petition does not even merit admission and the same deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
6. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. Consequently, the sub application is also closed.
23.09.2008
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
asr/
P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.
asr/
Cont. Petn. No.887 of 2008
Dated : 23.09.2008