MOLLY ALEXANDER Vs. RAMACHANDRAN THE TAHSILDAR AMBATTUR TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petitioners complaining non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22910/2009 dated 14.12.2009 filed the present Contempt Petition with the prayer to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent-Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District for non-compliance and disobedience of the order passed by this Court.

(2.) THE writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of the writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the representation dated 03.06.2009 filed by the petitioner seeking to measure and demarcate the property plot No.8, in S.Nos.127/4A and 3A, Viswas Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai 95.

(3.) (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this case has also relied upon the judgment rendered in UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS v. MADHUSUDAN PATHAK AND ANOTHER (2006(3) BLJR) 2408) to say that it is of high importance that the orders of the Court should be obeyed. Willful disobedience to an order of the Court is punishable as a contempt of Court. (ii) Further he relied upon another judgment rendered in DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION CO.(P)LTDAND ANOTHER(1996 (4) SCC 622). The principle laid down therein is that the contemner ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt is well-settled. It is held that undergoing the punishment for contempt does not mean that the Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and rectifying the things done in violation of its order. (iii) In CENTURY FLOUR MILLS LTD., v. S.SUPPIAH AND OTHERS (AIR 1975 MADRAS 270) it is held that as a matter of judicial policy, the court should guard against itself being stultified in circumstances like this by holding that it is not powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the court's orders. (iv) In the judgment dated 09/3/2007 in Appeal (Civil) No.1256/2007 (ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES V. RAGHABENDRA SINGH & OTHERS) it is observed that all the respondent Nos.1-4 are senior and experienced officers and must be presumed to know that under the constitutional scheme of this country orders of the High Court have to be obeyed implicitly and that orders of this Court for that matter any Court should not be trifled with. However, the Court refraining from doing any distasteful decision, by taking a lenient view of the matter, considering the future prospects of the officers by warning informs that they should not indulge in any adventurous act and strictly obey the orders passed by the Court of law . It is further observed that "though this is a fit case for awarding exemplary costs again taking a lenient view, we say, no costs."