P.MURUGESAN Vs. N.V.KANNIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 12 contempt petitions were filed by 10 petitioners seeking to punish the respondents for having allegedly disobeyed a common order dated 26.04.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.7135, 7314 to 7324 of 2011. Contempt Petition No. 904 and 906 were filed by the same petitioner viz., V. Subramanian and Contempt Petition Nos. 907 and 908 were filed by the same petitioner viz., S. Syed Jani. These contempt petitions are classic example of the petitioners abusing the process of law. They have been filing series of writ petitions without any success. The number of petitions filed by them and the different orders obtained by them will clearly show their lack of bonafides and their exercise in filing innumerable petitions is a classic example of virtual raid on the Court.

(2.) When these contempt petitions came up on 29.06.2011, statutory notices were issued to the respondents. However, in Contempt Petition Nos. 901, 902 and 903 of 2011, there is no record found showing any notices were issued in those contempt petitions. Subsequently, when the matters came up on 27.07.2011, this Court recorded that N. V. Kanniappan, Executive Officer, the first respondent and K. S. Mastan, Chairman of the Town Panchayat, the second respondent had appeared in person and their presence were dispensed with. They were also directed to file an affidavit regarding compliance of the order and also to explain as to why they fix the rent in question.

(3.) In Sub.Appln.No. 391 of 2011 in Contempt Petition No. 897 of 2011 filed by P. Murugesan, this Court granted interim injunction restraining the Town Panchayat from allotting Shop No. 1 in the Shopping Complex, Gingee Bus Stand to any third parties until further orders. In Sub. Appln. No. 395 of 2011 in Contempt Petition No. 905 of 2011 filed by one V. Venkatachalam, a similar order was granted restraining the Panchayat from allotting Shop No. 12 until further orders.