E THANGASAMY RAJA Vs. A MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner in w. P. No. 40814 of 2002, which was allowed on 31. 3. 2004. THE operative portion of the judgment is as follows: - " 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the several orders passed by the High Court on earlier occasions, the impugned proceedings dated 27. 5. 2002 is quashed and it is directed that the petitioners application for renewal or fresh application for renewal should be considered in accordance with law and it should be borne in mind that the petitioner as the priority in right to hold the market on saturdays and if the respondent is of the opinion that weekly market cannot be held at two different places on the very same day, the respondent would to well shift its market day to any other suitable day. Keeping in view the recalcitrant attitude of the respondent, I direct the respondent to pay a consolidated costs of Rs. 2 ,50 0 /- to the petitioner. Pending application or the fresh application for renewal should be considered by the respondent in the light of the observations made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "

(2.) THE writ petitioner received a copy of the order on 16. 4. 2004 and thereafter sent a representation on 6. 5. 2004 annexing a copy of the order to consider the application for renewal. THE representation and the copy of the order wa s served on the original respondent, who was the Executive Officer of the Ettayapuram Selection Grade Town panchayat, but no action was taken. THE second representation dated 3. 8. 2004 was made, which was received. On 11. 8. 2004, the respondent sent a communication stating that writ appeal has been filed. When the When the petitioner requested to furnish number of the writ appeal, the respondent gave a reply dated 23. 8. 2004 indicating S. R. Number of the writ appeal. On 1. 8. 2004, the petitioner informed the respondent that W. A. No. 3518 of 2004 was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 12. 11. 2004, the respondent informed the petitioner that they would renew the licence after the petitioner files a fresh application. On 16. 11. 2004, the petitioner sent a detailed representation that he had sent a representation as early as on 6. 5. 2004 with proper application and licence fee of Rs. 75/- by demand draft dated 5. 5. 2004. After receiving the representation dated 16. 11. 2004, the respondent sent another reply dated 23. 11. 2004 indicating that the demand draft sent by the petitioner has become time barred/invalid and directed the petitioner to take a fresh demand draft in order to renew the licence. By representation dated 29. 11. 2004, the petitioner informed the respondent that the demand draft has become invalid due to negligence of the respondent and it was not the fault of the petitioner and it is further indicated that only to drag on the question of issuing licence, the respondent is involving in such dilatory tactics. THE petitioner also indicated that he had provided sufficient toilet facilities, which has been confirmed by the Advocate Commissioner during the earlier writ proceedings. In order to satisfy the demand of the respondent, a fresh application was also made by the petitioner, which was received on 1. 12. 2004, and the respondent, on some pretext of the other, is indulging in dilatory tactics nor deny the right of the petitioner in total disregard of the order passed by the High Court.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid statement, the third respondent has submitted that there is no intentional or wilful disobedience by him and because of the unhelpful attitude of the petitioner in not paying the correct fee and not complying with the correct licence fee, there was delay in disposing of the application and there is no wilful disobedience.