A.R. Gokulakrishnan vs Mr. T.N. Ramanathan, Secretary, Backward and Most Backward Class Welfare Department and Mr. M.S. Janarthanan, Chairman, Backward and Most Backward Classes Commission

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—In this contempt the violation alleged is in respect of the order dated 10.08.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 24872 of 2006. By the said order, this Court recorded the assurance made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State assuring to dispose of the petitioner''s representation dated 20.06.2006 for inclusion of 24 Manai Telegu Chetty, Sathu Chetty, Telegu Chetty in the Most Backward Class Community on par with Telegu Patti Chetty within a time frame. Alleging non compliance of the order, when a legal notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner on 04.03.2009, the first respondent herein sent a letter dated 26.03.2009 stating that the State Government has constituted the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission as a permanent statutory body under Article 16 read with Article 340 of the Constitution of India for examining or recommending any request for inclusion or exclusion or for considering any other grievance relating to classification of the communities and that the petitioner''s representation dated 20.06.2006 has already been forwarded to the said Commission for its consideration. It is further stated that such a reference made to the Commission was also intimated to the petitioner by communication dated 21.09.2006.

Having regard to the said facts placed before us and the material placed, we do not find any scope to entertain this contempt application. However, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew our attention to paragraph 2 of the first respondent''s letter dated 26.03.2009, which reads as under:

With reference to the demand made in the legal notice to take immediate steps to comply of the Honourable High Court''s order made in the above writ petition, I am to state that the High Court after referring the assurance given by the learned Government Pleader has not given any direction to the respondents and therefore the question of raising contempt proceedings against the respondents in the matter does not arise.

Such an understanding of our order dated 10.08.2006 by the first respondent only discloses the first respondent''s failure to realise the real purport of the order of this Court dated 10.08.2006. When once the Law Officer of the State makes a responsible statement on behalf of the State to the effect that the prayer made in the writ petition would be duly complied with, no further specific direction would be necessary for this Court except recording such assurance made on behalf of the State by the responsible Law Officer. We hope and trust that the first respondent would understand this basic implication in recording any assurance made on behalf of the State by the concerned Law Officer in the Court while dealing with such situations in future. We make this observation in order to express our anguish in the manner in which the first respondent has treated the order of this Court dated 10.08.2006 without realising his responsibility.

The contempt petition stands disposed of.