BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 9/11/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Contempt Petition (MD) No.112 of 2007 U.Mariammal .. Petitioner Versus Mr.R.Mathinathan ..Respondent Prayer Petition under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71 to punish the respondent for the act of contempt committed by him for the disobedience and flouting of the order passed, dated 18.4.2005, in W.P.(MD) No.3369 of 2005. !For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Subbiah ^For Respondent ... Mr.N.Dilipkumar :ORDER
This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be
pleased to punish the respondent for
willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 18.4.2005, made in
W.P.(MD) No.3369 of 2005.
2. The writ petitioner had filed the writ petition, in W.P.(MD) No.3369 of
2005, claiming that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building
bearing Door No.896 (old No.5-B-14/3-C), Nehru Road, Sivakasi. She had prayed
for a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from interfering, in any way,
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of her property. She had submitted
that the respondents may contemplate to evict the petitioner from her property
and that they may also demolish the building belonging to her. This Court, while
dismissing the writ petition stating that the writ petition cannot be
entertained, merely on the apprehension of the petitioner, had observed that the
officials are duty bound to obey the law and that they should issue proper
notice to the persons aggrieved and that they should also be given an
opportunity of hearing before they are evicted.
3. The claim of the petitioner in the contempt petition is that the
respondent had violated the order passed by this Court, on 18.4.2005, by
evicting her from the property in question, without giving a reasonable
opportunity to her, as contemplated by this Court. Therefore, she had prayed
that the respondent may be punished for the contempt of Court for the willful
disobedience of the order, dated 18.4.2005, made in W.P.(MD) No.3369 of 2005.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the
respondent had followed all the necessary procedures contemplated under law
before evicting the petitioner from the property in question. A notice had also
been issued to her before the eviction was carried out. In fact, the notice
issued by the respondent, in encroachment notice No.16980/2000F2, dated
12.1.2007, had been challenged by the petitioner in W.P (MD) No.1062 of 2007. A
division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 13.3.2007, had dismissed the
said writ petition stating that the writ petition had become infructuous, in
view of the fact that the encroachment in question had been removed. Further,
this Court. in its order, dated 18.4.2005 had merely made an observation that
the respondent is expected to follow the due process of law, in evicting
encroachers. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondent for
willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 18.4.2005, in
W.P.(MD) No.3369 of 2005. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
lan