{"id":205084,"date":"2009-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-01T09:34:36","modified_gmt":"2018-08-01T04:04:36","slug":"s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 06\/08\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nContempt Petition(MD)No.60 of 2009\nin\nW.P(MD)No.2919 of 2008\n\nS.Soundain                  ...  Petitioner\/Writ Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.K.Sivakumar, B.Sc.,\n  Commissioner,\n  Aruppukottai Municipality,\n  Aruppukottai-626 101,\n  Virudhunagar District.\n\n2.Tmt.P.Jayalakshmi,\n  W\/o.Punaivanan,\n  No.10\/16,Ujjisamy Kovil Street,(West)\n  Aruppukottai-626 101,\n  Virudhunagar District.\n  [R2 impleaded as per order\n  dated 03.07.2009 made in\n  Sub.A.1\/09 Cont.P.No.60\/09]... Respondents\/Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nThis contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt\nof Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent herein for violating and willfully\ndisobeying the orders of this Honourable Court passed in W.P.No.2919 of 2008\ndated 27.11.2008 and pass such further orders.\n\n!For Petitioner     ... Mr.A.Sivaji\n^For 1st respondent ... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar\n                        Additional Govt. Pleader\nFor 2nd respondent  ... Mr.V.Perumal\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner in the contempt petition filed W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008 on<br \/>\nthe file of this Court against the 1st and 2nd respondent and others, directing<br \/>\nthe 1st respondent to remove the power looms machinery and the electric motor<br \/>\ninstalled at Door No.10\/16\/ Ujjisamy Kovil Street(West), Chokkalingapuram,<br \/>\nAruppukottai 626 101, Virudhunagar District, pursuant to his notice issued by<br \/>\nhim on 06.06.2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.According to the petitioner, the Ujjisamy Kovil Street(West),<br \/>\nChokkalingapuram, Aruppukottai 626 101, is a residential area and he applied to<br \/>\nthe 1st respondent to take action against the 2nd respondent, who has installed<br \/>\npower looms and running the same by using 5 horse power electric motor and as<br \/>\nper the communication of the 1st respondent dated 08.08.2007, informed that the<br \/>\npremises in question is being used for industrial purpose without any license<br \/>\nand action has been taken under Section 250 of the Tamil Nadu District<br \/>\nMunicipalities Act, 1920.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.It is also stated in the writ affidavit that the 1st respondent sent a<br \/>\nnotice under Section 250 of the Act on 06.06.2007 and thereafter, no follow up<br \/>\naction was taken by the 2nd respondent. In that circumstances, the petitioner<br \/>\nfiled the writ petition for the reliefs stated therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The writ petition was heard on 27.11.2008 and at that time, the<br \/>\nrespondents 2 to 4 were not represented by counsel and after hearing the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner and the 1st respondent, this Court passed the<br \/>\nfollowing orders:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;In this factual matrix, I would like to highlight that it is the duty of<br \/>\nthe Commissioner to see that within the jurisdiction in letter and spirit the<br \/>\nrules and regulations are enforced.  It is obvious and axiomatic that power loom<br \/>\ncannot be allowed to function without getting necessary permission, the reason<br \/>\nis obvious.  While permitting such power looms naturally the authority concerned<br \/>\nshould impose conditions and that too after taking into account the disturbance<br \/>\nactually, which might be caused to the neighbours, permissions are granted only<br \/>\nafter taking into account the location of the intended place, where the power<br \/>\nloom would be functioning.  But in this case, it appears that the respondents 2<br \/>\nto 4 are operating their power looms without any permission.<br \/>\n\tHence, in these circumstances, the following direction is issued:<br \/>\n The first respondent viz., the Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality,<br \/>\nAruppukottai, Virudhunagar District, shall do well to see that legal steps are<br \/>\ntaken to prevent from operating power looms within a period of two months from<br \/>\nthe date of receipt of a copy of this order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent herein also filed a writ petition<br \/>\nin W.P.(MD)No.11080 of 2008 against the 1st respondent herein, directing the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent to issue license to the petitioner, in pursuance of the application<br \/>\nof the petitioner dated 20.05.2008 in application No.1135. That writ petition<br \/>\nwas also disposed of by this Court, by order dated 03.12.2008, directing the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent herein, to consider the application of the petitioner viz., the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent herein, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy<br \/>\nof this order, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.<br \/>\nThe order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008 was sent to the 1st respondent<br \/>\nherein, by RPAD and he also received the same on 12.12.2008.  The order passed<br \/>\nin W.P.(MD)No.11080 of 2008 was also received by the 1st respondent herein, on<br \/>\n11.12.2008. The 1st respondent as per the order made in W.P.(MD)No.11080 of 2008<br \/>\ngranted license to the 2nd respondent on 31.12.2008.  As the 1st respondent has<br \/>\nnot acted in pursuance to the direction given by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2919<br \/>\nof 2008 dated 27.11.2008, despite the same being brought to his notice, this<br \/>\ncontempt petition was filed by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that he received<br \/>\nthe order passed in W.P(MD)No.2919 of 2008 on 12.12.2008 and also received the<br \/>\norder in W.P.(MD)No.11080 of 2008 on 11.12.2008 and as per the order made in<br \/>\nW.P.(MD)No.11080 of 2008 he granted license to run the poor looms, after<br \/>\nfollowing rules and regulations.  He has further stated that since license was<br \/>\nissued to the 2nd respondent, Municipality is not in a position to take action<br \/>\nto prevent the operation of the power looms as directed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.The 2nd respondent also filed a counter affidavit stating that the order<br \/>\npassed in W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008 was in the absence of her counsel, whereas the<br \/>\norder was passed in W.P.(MD)No.11080 of 2008 in the presence of the Government<br \/>\nPleader and it is further stated that she has already applied for the license<br \/>\neven on 20.05.2008 and as per Section 321(11) of the Tamil Nadu District<br \/>\nMunicipality Act, the license is deemed to have been granted and therefore, even<br \/>\nbefore the order was passed in W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008, she has got the license<br \/>\nand hence, she has not committed any contempt and the order passed by the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent was only in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in<br \/>\nW.P.(MD)No.11080 of 2008 and therefore, she has not committed any contempt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.The 1st  respondent also filed the additional affidavit on 17.07.2009<br \/>\nwherein he has stated in para 3 and 4 as follows: &#8220;It is submitted that the<br \/>\nabove narrated facts are not correct from the part of the our office records on<br \/>\n31.12.2008.  Our office has given only permission to erect 7 power looms each<br \/>\nhaving 0.65 H.P. and one 0.5. H.P Electric Motor as in the same permission<br \/>\nletter of our office.  Further stated, after installation of the power looms and<br \/>\nelectric Motor, the applicant has to pay required license fee into the Municipal<br \/>\nOffice, and to apply for the proper license to run the power looms.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHere the 2nd respondent has paid the license fees at Rs.325\/- (Rupees<br \/>\nThree hundred and twenty five only) on 05.02.2009 and the same is received by<br \/>\nour office on the same date.  But till date proper license was not issued to the<br \/>\n2nd respondent.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.Mr.A.Sivaji, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would<br \/>\ncontend that both the respondents have committed contempt of Court by willfully<br \/>\ndisobeying the order of this Court and the 1st respondent knowing fully well<br \/>\nthat this Court has directed him to take all legal steps to prevent from<br \/>\noperating the poor looms within a period of 2 months, granted permission to the<br \/>\n2nd respondent and therefore, he is guilty of contempt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.The learned counsel would further submit that the 2nd respondent was<br \/>\nalso aware of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008 and therefore, she<br \/>\nshould not have run the power looms and hence, she also committed the contempt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\nthat the area is a residential area and therefore, no industries shall be<br \/>\nallowed to run in that area, and the 1st respondent without any regard for the<br \/>\nsame permitted not only the erection of machineries but also allowed the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent to run the factory in utter disregard to the order passed by this<br \/>\nCourt, which specifically directed the 1st respondent to take all steps to<br \/>\nprevent the operation of the power looms.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.Mr.Perumal, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, would<br \/>\ncontend that the area is not a residential area, and it is a mixed residential<br \/>\nand industrial area and therefore, there is no prohibition for having a power<br \/>\nloom industry in that area.\n<\/p>\n<p> \t13.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would also insist<br \/>\nthat under Section 321(11) of the Act ,once license was not issued within a<br \/>\nperiod of 15 days from the date of application, it is deemed to have been<br \/>\ngranted and hence, there is no need for her to obtain license from the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent as she has already applied for license even on 25.05.2008 and only by<br \/>\nway of abundant caution, she filed the writ W.P.(MD)No.11080 of 2008, directing<br \/>\nthe 1st respondent to grant license.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.For better appreciation of the facts in this case, the provisions of<br \/>\nSection 250 and 321 has to he considered.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.Section 250 deals with the application to be made for construction,<br \/>\nestablishment or installation of factory, workshop or workplace in which steam<br \/>\nor other power is to be employed.  If we go through the various clause in<br \/>\nSection 250, it only deals with granting or permission for construction,<br \/>\nestablishment or installation of factory etc., The grant of license or<br \/>\npermission is dealt with under Section 321 and therefore, the deeming provisions<br \/>\nunder section 250 will only apply to the construction or installation of factory<br \/>\nor work shop.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.It is stated by the 2nd respondent in her affidavit in W.P.(MD)No.11080<br \/>\nof 2008, she applied for license under Section 250 of the Tamil Nadu District<br \/>\nMunicipality Act.  It is her case that she was running the power looms from 1983<br \/>\nand the neighbours in that locality have no objection to run the power looms and<br \/>\nthe 1st respondent, in his letter dated 30.03.2007 has stated that the area<br \/>\nviz., Ward No.9, Survey No.591\/22, Ujjisamy Kovil Street (West),<br \/>\nChokkalingapuram, Aruppukottai, is having more power looms and being developed<br \/>\nas a mixed area.  Therefore, it was contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent that she has applied under Section 250 of the Act and as no order has<br \/>\nbeen passed by the 1st respondent within a period of 16 days license, the<br \/>\nlicense is deemed to have been given and therefore, there is no act of contempt<br \/>\ncommitted by the 2nd respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.According to me, section 250 deals with applying for permission for<br \/>\nconstruction, establishment and installation of work shop and it has nothing to<br \/>\ndo for the grant of license.  Therefore, deeming provisions under Section 250<br \/>\nwould be taken into account only in respect of permission and it cannot be<br \/>\napplied to license. It is one thing to say that permission is granted for<br \/>\nconstruction or installation of factory or machinery and another thing to say<br \/>\nthat the license was granted to run the factory or machinery.  Both cannot be<br \/>\nconfused as one of the same thing.  It is made clear by the provisions in 321 of<br \/>\nthe Act.  Therefore, the 2nd respondent has only applied for permission under<br \/>\nsection 250 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and she has not<br \/>\napplied for license under Section 321 and it is further made clear, by the order<br \/>\nof the 1st respondent dated 31.12.2008, wherein it has been specifically stated<br \/>\nthat after the installation of the machinery for running the machineries,<br \/>\nseparate application has to be made by paying separate fee. The various<br \/>\nconditions annexed to the order dated 31.12.2008 would also make it clear that<br \/>\nthe permission was granted by the 1st respondent in response to the application<br \/>\nof the 2nd respondent dated 25.05.2008 was only as per Section 250 of the Act<br \/>\nand permission was granted only for the purpose of installation of machinery.<br \/>\nIt is also stated in that order dated 31.12.2008 that permission is granted for<br \/>\ninstallation of the machineries mentioned thereunder. Therefore, the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent was also aware of the fact that permission was sought for by the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent only for installation of machinery and that order was granted on<br \/>\n31.12.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18.But the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent on 16.07.2009<br \/>\nwould prove that the 1st respondent not only granted permission under Section<br \/>\n250, but also granted license to the  2nd respondent to run the machineries. It<br \/>\nis stated by the 1st respondent in his counter affidavit dated 16.07.2009 in<br \/>\npara 3 that on receipt of the order viz., the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.11080<br \/>\nof 2008 in order to obey the direction issued by this Court, the Municipality<br \/>\nhas considered the application of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.11080 of 2008 and<br \/>\non 31.12.2008 granted license to run the power looms after following the rules<br \/>\nand regulations.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19.Therefore, he made it very clear that as per his order dated 31.12.2008<br \/>\nhe has granted license to run the power looms.  He further stated that as<br \/>\nlicense was issued to the respondent, he could not comply with the direction of<br \/>\nthis Honourable Court made in W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008.  The specific wordings in<br \/>\nthat affidavit are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;In order to obey the direction by this Hon&#8217;be court with in a period of<br \/>\n15 days, the respondent Municipality has considered the application of the<br \/>\npetitioner in W.P.(MD)No.2008 and on 31.12.2008 and granted permission to<br \/>\ninstall the machineries after following the Rules and Regulations.  Since<br \/>\npermission was issued to the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.2919 of 2008 the<br \/>\nrespondent Municipality was not in a position to take action to prevent to the<br \/>\noperation of the power loom as directed by this Hon&#8217;ble Court&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, according to the 1st respondent, he was aware of the order passed in<br \/>\nW.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008, which directed him to take all legal steps to prevent<br \/>\nthe operation of the poor looms and despite the said order dated 31.12.2008 made<br \/>\nin W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008, he has granted license to the 2nd respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20.According to me, in W.P.(MD)No.11080 of 2008 there is no specific<br \/>\ndirection to the 1st respondent to grant permission or license to the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent, in pursuance to her application dated 20.05.2008.  This Court has<br \/>\nonly directed the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of<br \/>\nthis order.  Therefore, the 1st respondent on receipt of the order passed in<br \/>\nW.P.(MD)No.11080 of 2008 and order passed in W.P.(MD)2919 of 2008 should not<br \/>\nhave granted license or permission to the 2nd respondent and having regard to<br \/>\nthe order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008 ought to have directed the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent to approach this Court for specific direction in the light of the<br \/>\norder passed in W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008 and instead of taking that recourse<br \/>\nwithout any regard to the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008, the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent granted permission\/license to the 2nd respondent and has also stated<br \/>\nin the affidavit that as license has been granted to the 2nd respondent, he<br \/>\ncould not comply with the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008.  Therefore,<br \/>\nthe act of the 1st respondent amounts to disobeying the order passed in<br \/>\nW.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008 and it is willful and deliberate and therefore, he is<br \/>\nguilty of having committed the contempt of this Court order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21.The 1st respondent during the course of hearing of the contempt<br \/>\npetition filed the additional counter affidavit dated 17.07.2009 wherein he has<br \/>\nstated that the allegations made by him in the earlier affidavit, which was<br \/>\nreferred above are not correct and as per his order dated 31.12.2008, he has<br \/>\ngiven only permission to erect seven power looms each having 0.5.H.P. and after<br \/>\ninstallation of  the power looms, the 2nd respondent has to pay the required<br \/>\nlicense fee and applied for the proper license and the 2nd respondent has paid<br \/>\nthe license fee on 05.02.2009 and till date no license was issued and therefore,<br \/>\nhe has stated that he never disobeyed the order of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22.Of course, it is true that as per the order dated 31.12.2008,<br \/>\npermission alone was given to install the machineries.  But having regard to the<br \/>\nallegations made in the earlier affidavit, which specifically admitted that the<br \/>\nlicense was granted for running the machineries and the conduct of the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent in not taking any action to prevent the operation of the poor looms,<br \/>\nthough in the order dated 31.12.2008, he granted only permission to the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent, would all cumulatively prove that the 1st respondent has willfully<br \/>\nand deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t23.As I have held that the 1st respondent has committed contempt of Court,<br \/>\nI will have to impose the proper punishment that must be imposed on the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t24.It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader,<br \/>\nK.M.Vijayakumar, that the 1st respondent, has tendered unconditional apology in<br \/>\nhis affidavit and he is sincere in his apology and he has also purged the<br \/>\ncontempt by passing an order dated 21.07.2009, cancelling the permission granted<br \/>\nby the order dated 31.12.2008 and also prohibited the 2nd respondent from<br \/>\noperating the power looms as per the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008 and<br \/>\ntherefore, the Court must take lenient view on the 1st respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t25.It is seen from the conduct of the 1st respondent that having been<br \/>\nfully aware of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008, he has chosen to<br \/>\ngrant permission\/license to the 2nd respondent, though as per the order made in<br \/>\nW.P.(MD)No.11080 of 2008 there was no direction to him to grant permission or<br \/>\nlicense.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t26.On the other hand, the 1st respondent has also filed a affidavit to<br \/>\nthat effect, as license was granted, to the 2nd respondent he is not in a<br \/>\nposition to take action to prevent the operation of the power looms, as per the<br \/>\norder made in W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2008.  These facts would prove that the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent has willfully and deliberately committed the contempt and his act of<br \/>\ntendering unconditional apology and purging the contempt would not relieve him<br \/>\nfrom the deliberate act committed by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t27.It has been held in the Judgment reported in 2009(4) 213 in the case of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/504629\/\">C.Elumalai and others vs. A.G.L.Irudayaraj and<\/a> another, &#8220;5.31.Apology is an act<br \/>\nof contrition.  Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in<br \/>\ngood grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be<br \/>\nrejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that<br \/>\nthe court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and become an<br \/>\nact of a cringing coward.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t32.Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their office,<br \/>\nnor is it intended to operate as universal panacea, but it is intended to be<br \/>\nevidence of real contriteness.  As was noted in <a href=\"\/doc\/830334\/\">L.D.Jaikwal v. State of U.P<\/a><br \/>\n(1984)3 SCC 405;1984 SCC (Cri) 421 SCC p.406, para-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come<br \/>\nform the heart and not from the pen. For it is one thing to &#8216;say&#8217; sorry-it is<br \/>\nanother to &#8216;feel&#8217; sorry&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t28.It is further stated in the judgment reported in 2003(11)SCC page 1, in<br \/>\nthe case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1658669\/\">Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharma Godah,<\/a> &#8220;Willful means an act or<br \/>\nomission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intend to do something<br \/>\nthe law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law<br \/>\nrequires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to<br \/>\ndisregard the law.  According to the Court, it signifies the act done with evil<br \/>\nintent or with a bad motive or purpose.  It was observed that the act or<br \/>\nomission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t29.It is further held in 1999(7) SCC 569 in the case of Kapildeo Prasad<br \/>\nSah v. State of Bihar that for holding a person to have committed contempt, it<br \/>\nmust be shown that there was willful disobedience of the judgment or order of<br \/>\nthe court.  But it was indicated that even negligence and carelessness may<br \/>\namount to contempt.  It was further observed that issuance of notice for<br \/>\ncontempt of court and power to punish are having far-reaching consequences, and<br \/>\nas such, they should be resorted to only when a clear case of willful<br \/>\ndisobedience of the court&#8217;s order is made out.  A petitioner who complains (sic<br \/>\nof a) breach of court&#8217;s order must allege deliberate or contumacious<br \/>\ndisobedience of the court&#8217;s order and if such allegation is proved, contempt can<br \/>\nbe said to have been made out, not otherwise. The Court noted that power to<br \/>\npunish for contempt is intended to maintain effective legal system.  It is<br \/>\nexercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the celebrated decision of Attorney General v. Times Newspaper Ltd.<br \/>\n1974 AC 273 (1973) 3 WLR 298:(1973)3 All ER 54(HL) Lord Diplock stated (AC<br \/>\np.308A)<br \/>\n    &#8216;&#8230; There is an element of public policy in punishing civil contempt, since<br \/>\nthe administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any court of<br \/>\nlaw could be disregarded with impunity&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t30.From the above noted decisions, punishing a person for contempt of<br \/>\nCourt is not only the power, but also the duty of the Court to uphold and<br \/>\nmaintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t31.Bearing in mind the principles stated in the above judgments and having<br \/>\nregard to the conduct of the 1st respondent in passing the order dated<br \/>\n21.07.2009, by which, he attempted to purge the contempt, I impose a fine of<br \/>\nRs.1,000\/- (Rupees One thousand only) against the 1st respondent as punishment<br \/>\nfor having committed the contempt of this Court order.  So far as the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent is concerned, she has not disobeyed any order of this Court and<br \/>\nhence, this contempt petition against the 2nd respondent is dismissed.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected Sub. Application No.2 of 2009 is also dismissed. Two<br \/>\nweeks time is granted for payment of the fine and the 1st respondent is directed<br \/>\nto pay the fine amount of Rs.1,000\/- to the credit of Hon&#8217;ble Chief Justice<br \/>\nRelief Fund.\n<\/p>\n<p>er<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06\/08\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN Contempt Petition(MD)No.60 of 2009 in W.P(MD)No.2919 of 2008 S.Soundain &#8230; Petitioner\/Writ Petitioner Vs. 1.K.Sivakumar, B.Sc., Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality, Aruppukottai-626 101, Virudhunagar District. 2.Tmt.P.Jayalakshmi, W\/o.Punaivanan, No.10\/16,Ujjisamy Kovil Street,(West) Aruppukottai-626 101, Virudhunagar [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205084","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-01T04:04:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-01T04:04:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3541,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009\",\"name\":\"S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-01T04:04:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-01T04:04:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-01T04:04:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009"},"wordCount":3541,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009","name":"S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-01T04:04:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-soundain-vs-k-sivakumar-on-6-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Soundain vs K.Sivakumar on 6 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205084","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=205084"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205084\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205084"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205084"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205084"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}