C VENKATASUBBU Vs. K N SOLAIRAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above Contempt Petition under Section 10 read with 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for deliberately violating the terms and conditions of the undertaking in the joint memo executed by the respondent, filed in Writ petition No. 14517 of 2003 and recorded on 20. 5. 3003 by this Court and disobeying the said order, thereby committing contempt of Court.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the above petition, it is stated that the respondent herein submitted 3 applications with 3 industrial programmes to the Government of Tamil Nadu, INdustries Department, to quarry granite in S. Nos. 406/5 (present Survey No. 297/5) of Keelavalavu village, 94/2 and 167/1 of Thiruchunai Village for grant of lease of 10 Hec. , in each of the survey numbers. Since the petitioner was a retired Tahsildar and guiding the respondent, the respondent appointed him as a Power Agent on 12. 2. 1997 and the same was registered on 27. 2. 1997. It was treated as an irrevocable power. The Government of Tamil Nadu passed orders in G. O. 3 (D) No. 11, INdustries (MMB1) Department dated 12. 4. 2003 granting lease in the name of the respondent. When he was taking steps to execute the lease in his capacity as Power Agent of the respondent with the District Collector, Madurai, the respondent revoked the power of attorney and questioning the revocation, the petitioner has filed O. S. No. 462 of 2003 before the I Additional Sub court, Madurai and also filed a writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 14517 of 2003 and he obtained an order of injunction in W. M. P. No. 18136 of 2003 from executing any document or encumbering the property in question. Thereafter, the respondent executed an irrevocable power of attorney coupled with interest on 14. 5. 2003 and it was registered as document No. 852 of 2003. After that, the petitioner and the respondent settled the matter out of Court and filed a joint memo on 20. 5. 2003 before this Court and this Court after recording the joint memo, closed the said writ petition. Based on the said order, the District Collector, Madurai executed a lease deed with the petitioner on 29. 12. 2003, representing the respondent as his irrevocable general power of attorney, coupled with interest, executed on 14. 5. 2003. However, he received a telegram on 13. 1. 2004 from the respondent stating that he has revoked the power dated 14. 5. 2003 by document No. 4/0 4 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Singampunari, Sivagangai district. He also issued a lawyer' ; s notice dated 13. 1. 2004, confirming the cancellation of power of attorney. INasmuch as in the order dated 20. 5. 2003 made in W. P. No. 14517 of 2003, it was specifically stated that the memo filed in the writ petition was forming part of the order, the power of attorney dated 14. 5. 2003 forms part of the memo, by canceling/revoking the said registered irrevocable general power of attorney, the respondent has flouted the orders of this Court and therefore, he is guilty of contempt of Court.

(3.) IN Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, 2002 (3) CTC 122, Their Lordships have held that while exercising contempt jurisdiction, Court does not function as original or appellate Court for determination of dispute between parties, and the contempt jurisdiction should be confined to question as to whether there has been deliberate disobedience of order of Court. IN R. N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik, 2000 (4) SCC 400 it was held that contempt is a matter between the Court and the contemner and the aggrieved party has no right to insist that Court should exercise its jurisdiction. It was also held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used for purpose of executing a decree or implementing an order for which law provides appropriate procedure.