Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1270 (MAD)

. v. .

2005-08-04

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA

body2005
Judgment :- The Honourable Chief Justice: The above writ appeal has been taken up along with the Contempt Appeal No. 18 of 2005. 2. The above writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 22.3.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.7023 of 2004. 3. Heard Mr. R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. The impugned order dated 22.3.2004 of the learned single Judge only directs that the representation of the writ petitioner (first respondent in this appeal) dated 16.1.2004 should be decided by the District Collector, Chennai, within a reasonable time. It appears that subsequently a contempt petition being Contempt Petition No.807 of 2004 was filed by the first respondent alleging that the representation had not been decided despite the order of the Court dated 22.3.2004. In that contempt proceeding the learned single Judge observed as follows:- " This Court is not satisfied in the way in which the matter has been dragged on for several years. Counter is also filed by the District Collector, whose attitude has not been appreciated by this Court for more than one occasion. This Court is once again directing the District Collector and Tahsildar to remove the two hoardings at No.112, Chamiers Road, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035 on or before 1.8.2005." It appears that during the pendency of the Contempt Petition No.807 of 2004, the District Collector, Chennai, passed an order dated 1.11.2004 disposing of the petitioner's representation dated 16.1.2004 by the following order: " With reference to your application cited, I have to state that the hoardings erected by private advertising agencies near your landed property could not be removed as the Advertising agencies have filed batch of writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai which are numbered as W.P.No.19056/2003, 19057/2003 etc., totally 10 writ petitions besides a P.I.L. in W.P.No.24154 of 2003 have been filed against the rules and norms fixed by the Government as per Government of Tamil Nadu Notification dated 4.6.2003 in granting licenses/renewal of existing licenses to the concerned advertising agencies. In view of the undertaking given by the learned Advocate General before the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai in the matter of removal of existing hoarding which violated the norms/rules prescribed by the Government in the said notification, no final order could be passed by this office pending the outcome of the result of the above said writ petitions. In view of the undertaking given by the learned Advocate General before the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai in the matter of removal of existing hoarding which violated the norms/rules prescribed by the Government in the said notification, no final order could be passed by this office pending the outcome of the result of the above said writ petitions. I further wish to state that appropriate action will be taken on your representation for removing/regularising the said hoardings as soon the above cases are disposed off." 5. A perusal of the above order of the District Collector, Chennai, dated 1.11.2004 shows that the Collector has said that appropriate action will be taken on the petitioner's representation dated 16.1.2004 after the writ petitions in the High Court referred to in the above order are disposed off. 6. Subsequent to the aforesaid order of the District Collector dated 1.11.2004, the order dated 15.7.2005 in Contempt Petition No.807 of 2004 quoted above has been passed. 7. With profound respect to the learned single Judge, we are of the opinion that he was not justified in giving a direction to the District Collector and Tahsildar to remove the two hoardings at No.112, Chamiers Road, Nandanam, Chennai. 8. In contempt proceedings, the Court can either punish for contempt or discharge the notice for contempt, but the Court can certainly not give directions as if it was hearing a writ petition. The scope of a contempt petition is limited and a Judge cannot go beyond that scope. 9. Mr. R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that in pursuance of the directions of the learned single Judge dated 15.7.2005 in Contempt Petition No.807 of 2004, the hoarding of the appellant has been removed. 10. Since we are of the opinion that the learned Judge in contempt proceedings could not have given a direction for removal of hoardings, we stay the operation of the order dated 15.7.2005 passed in Contempt Petition No.807 of 2004 and direct that the status quo ante prevailing prior to the order dated 15.7.2005 shall be restored. If the appellant's hoarding was existing on the date of the order i.e. 15.7.2005, it shall be restored forthwith. This order will be subject to further orders in these two connected appeals. Notice.