Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 969 (MAD)

H. Mohammed Mohideen v. Palaniyappan, The Managing Director

2016-03-08

M.VENUGOPAL

body2016
ORDER : Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. It comes to be known that this Court on 30.01.2014 in W.P.No.17205 of 2012 (filed by the Petitioner) had directed the Respondent/Slum Clearance Board to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 08.04.2010 in a fair, just, objective fashion etc. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Board brings it to the notice of this Court that the Respondent/ Board had considered the representation of the Petitioner dated 08.04.2010 and also passed an order on 17.03.2014 relating to the issuance of Sale Deed in respect of Plot No.7, Erukkanchery High Road, Chozhan Nagar, Vyaasarpadi, Chennai and in effect, the stand taken on behalf of the Respondent/Board is that the Board had complied with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17205 of 2012 dated 30.01.2014. 4. In view of the fact that the Respondent/Board had considered the representation of the Petitioner dated 08.04.2010, in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17205 of 2012 dated 30.01.2014, this Court holds that nothing survives for adjudication in the present Contempt Petition and accordingly, disposes of the Contempt Petition. 5. In the result, the Contempt Petition is disposed of. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to assail the reply dated 17.03.2014 passed the Respondent/Board before the competent forum in the manner known to law and in accordance with law, if he so desires/advised, as an aggrieved person.