Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3968 (MAD)

D. Pandiyan Aasari v. Mohanraj

2014-10-27

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
JUDGMENT M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The 2nd Respondent (Manimaran) Tahsildar, Melur Taluk, Madurai District/ Contemnor is present today at about 2.30 p.m. It is represented on behalf of the 2nd Respondent before this Court that an Affidavit of Compliance has been filed. 2. According to the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, in W.P. (MD) No. 8594 of 2012, this Court passed an Order on 26.06.2012 interalia directing the 1st Respondent/Appellate Authority/Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court), Madurai District, to dispose of the Appeal, at the earliest, after hearing the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent therein, on merits and in accordance with Law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 3. Further, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the 2nd Respondent by name was impleaded in the Contempt Petition because of the reason that the 1st Respondent had stated that the 2nd Respondent had not transmitted the file to him. Only in such circumstance, the 2nd Respondent by name was suo motu impleaded by this Court, as per order, dated 03.09.2014. 4. Today, this Court has perused the contents of affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent. At this stage, a mere running of the eye over the contents of the affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent latently and patently indicates that the 2nd Respondent had assumed charge, as Tahsildar, Melur District on 07.07.2014 and on receiving the request from the 1st Respondent, dated 09.06.2014, seeking for disposal of the file and in so far due to unprecedented multi-crores granite scam, which rocked the Nation, entire Taluk Administration had to be deployed in unearthing the scam and as a result, the regular functioning came to a stand-still and due to that the connected TR file was misplaced. Further, a team of Officials were deputed to search connected TR file and after hectic search made in Office as well as in the Record Room, the file was located and submitted immediately to the Office of the first Contemnor/Respondent on 11.09.2014 in ROC. No. C 6061 of 2012. 5. Continuing further, on behalf of the Respondents, Mr. M. Raja Rajan, the Learned Government Advocate, brings it to the Notice of this Court that on 29.09.2014, the first Respondent had passed the order in issue. No. C 6061 of 2012. 5. Continuing further, on behalf of the Respondents, Mr. M. Raja Rajan, the Learned Government Advocate, brings it to the Notice of this Court that on 29.09.2014, the first Respondent had passed the order in issue. It is true that the order in W.P. (MD) No. 8594 of 2012 was passed on 26.06.2012 by this Court. However, the same was not complied with till 29.09.2014. Although the Respondents had ascribed reasons that the TR file was missing in the Record Room and latter only after search was made, the file was to be located. At this stage, this Court, very relevantly point out that when a Court of Law passes an order directing the concerned officials in a given proceedings to comply with the order within the time specified, then it has to be obeyed in a meticulous fashion and that too, with great care, caution and circumspection. No plausible or possible reasons can be ascribed on behalf of the concerned respondents/officials to come with a plea that the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition could not be complied with based one reason or other. Be that as it may, as far as the present case is concerned, in view of the fact that the 2nd Respondent had filed a affidavit before this Court stating that a team of officials were deputed to search connected TR file and after hectic search made in Office as well as in the Record Room, the file was located and in view of the subsequent development that the 1st Respondent had passed orders in the appeal on 29.09.2014, this Court, accepting the affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent, closes the present Contempt Petition, after taking note of the fact that the 2nd Respondent had in his affidavit in paragraph 7 had categorically expressed his sincere regret and tender his unconditional apologies and further stated that he shall guard against recurrence in future.