At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
For the Petitioner : A.J. Yuvaraj Reddy, party-in-person, Advocate. For the Respondent: L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Govt. Advocate.
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for the willful disobedience of the order dated 24.08.2007 passed in W.P.No.28195 of 2007.)
Heard the petitioner who appeared as a party-in-person and Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Government Advocate representing the Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. In a writ petition complaining unauthorized construction over the trust land, the petitioner herein had prayed for a direction to the respondent herein to take necessary action against Swayam Prabha, Joseph and Kalyanaraman, who had been arrayed as respondents 8 to 10 in the writ petition for the removal of the unauthorized construction allegedly put up by them. In the above said writ petition, namely W.P.No.28195 of 2007, the court passed an order on 24.08.2007 containing the following direction.
"3. Considering the limited prayer now sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 21.09.2006, if it is otherwise valid and if the petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for in the said representation, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
3. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent has passed an order in Na.Ka.13291/05/F2 dated 03.09.2007 to the effect that no steps could be taken for the demolition of the said buildings for a period of one year from 27.07.2007 in the light of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.1/2007 dated 27.07.2007. Citing the said order as an act of contempt committed by the respondent herein in so far as no order for demolition has been issued, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition to punish the respondent.
4. When an authority is empowered to make a decision, it does have a power to decide it either rightly or wrongly. If anybody is aggrieved by such an order, the remedy for him is to challenge the validity of such an order. The respondent herein has complied with the direction issued by this court in W.P.No.28195 of 2007 by passing an order on the representation dated 21.09.2006 made by the petitioner herein within the time granted by this court. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the direction for disposal of the representation has not been complied with within the time stipulated by this court. Admittedly, an order has been passed within the time granted by thi
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
s court. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by such an order, the remedy available for him is to challenge that order in an appropriate forum. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the contempt petition is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly dismissed.