Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1650 (MAD)

R. Madhavan v. Dharmandra Pratap Yadav, I. A. S.

2008-06-10

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2008
Judgment :- Heard the submissions made by Mr. K. Premkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This contempt petition has been filed for proceeding against the respondents for contempt on the ground that they have not complied with the direction issued by this court by its order dated 09.04.2008 made in W.P.No.8637 of 2008. The relevant portion of the order incorporating the direction is reproduced here under. "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the Respondents are directed to release the vehicle Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-01-M-8807 in favour of the petitioner, pending final orders, on the following conditions:- (a) The petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), if the offence was committed by the petitioner for the first time and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), if the offence was committed by the petitioner for the second time and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only), if the offence was committed for the third time, in cash before the respondent. (b) The petitioner should produce documents relating to the ownership of the vehicle. (c) The petitioner should file an undertaking that the petitioner will produce the vehicle in question before the respondent as and when called for and that the petitioner will not alienate the vehicle in question till the proceedings initiated are completed. (d) The Respondents are directed to pass final orders in the adjudication proceedings within a period of two months. Subject to the aforesaid conditions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed." 3. This contempt petition was filed on 28.04.2008. Admittedly, till the said date, the direction regarding the release of the lorry was not complied with. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the summer vacation, the said direction was complied with by releasing the lorry pursuant to the deposit made by the petitioner in accordance with the order of this court. Admittedly, no time has been fixed in the said order of this court dated 09.04.2008. As the direction incorporated in the said order has been complied with subsequent to the filing of this petition, there is no need to proceed against the respondents for contempt. Accordingly, contempt petition is closed. 4. Admittedly, no time has been fixed in the said order of this court dated 09.04.2008. As the direction incorporated in the said order has been complied with subsequent to the filing of this petition, there is no need to proceed against the respondents for contempt. Accordingly, contempt petition is closed. 4. As requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the office is directed to return the original order to the counsel for the petitioner.