Skip to content


E. Visalatchi Vs. T. Balamurugan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberContempt Petition No. 1762 of 2016
Judge
AppellantE. Visalatchi
RespondentT. Balamurugan
Excerpt:
contempt of courts act, 1971 - section 11 -.....of this order. 4. it is represented on behalf of the respondent/contemnor that necessary order was passed by the tahsildar, avadi, chennai today (04.10.2016), rejecting the request made by the petitioner in the representation so made by her. 5. in view of the fact that the respondent/contemnor had considered the representation of the petitioner dated 15.07.2013 and passed necessary orders, this court opines that nothing survives for adjudication in the present contempt petition. 6. accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. before parting with the case, this court makes it clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the tahsildar, avadi, chennai, then, it is open to the petitioner to assail the correctness of the said order before the.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to punish the respondent for the wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.4004 of 2014 dated 20.02.2015.)

1. Heard Mr.V.M.Venkatramana, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayan, Learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent.

2. It comes to be known that the Petitioner had filed W.P.No.4004 of 2014 before this Court praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents to consider and dispose of her representation dated 15.07.2013 within a time frame.

3. This Court on 20.02.2015 in W.P.No.4004 of 2014 (filed by the Petitioner) had, inter alia, directed the 2nd Respondent (viz., the Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk Office, Ambattur, Chennai) to look into the Petitioner's representation dated 15.07.2013, forthwith and to dispose of the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. It is represented on behalf of the Respondent/Contemnor that necessary order was passed by the Tahsildar, Avadi, Chennai today (04.10.2016), rejecting the request made by the Petitioner in the representation so made by her.

5. In view of the fact that the Respondent/Contemnor had considered the representation of the Petitioner dated 15.07.2013 and passed necessary orders, this Court opines that nothing survives for adjudication in the present Contempt Petition.

6. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is closed. Before parting with the case, this Court makes it clear that if the Petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Avadi, Chennai, then, it is open to the Petitioner to assail the correctness of the said order before the Competent Forum, of course, in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law, if she so desires/advised.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //