K. Maragatham vs Mr.V. Mohan and The Sub Inspector of Police

Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru

This Contempt Petition came to be filed for the alleged disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5499 of 2006, dated 20.09.2006.

The contempt petitioner filed the original Writ Petition being W.P.(MD)No.5499 of 2006 before this Court seeking for a direction to the third respondent therein to initiate action against the sixth respondent therein for running an unauthorized school in the premises at Door No.1, Periyannan Chettiar Street, Vedasandur and for closure of the said school.

In the Writ Petition, after notice to the present contemnor, who was represented by a counsel, this Court found that the contemnor was running the school in the address stated above and the premises was owned by the original writ petitioner and the school was functioning with 112 students and 7 teachers. Therefore, the learned counsel for the present contemnor requested the Court that if all of a sudden, a closure is ordered, the children would be put up to a great hardship. Therefore, the contemnor was directed to file an affidavit before this Court, if he seeks for any further time and the affidavit of undertaking submitted by the contemnor was recorded by this Court. In paragraph No.3 of the order made in W.P.(MD)No.5499 of 2006, it was averred as follows:

I therefore pray that atleast one year time from this day is granted to run the school in the present premises. I shall not run the school without the prior permission of the Educational Authorities. I have also applied to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Dindigul to run the school in the existing premises for the current academic year June 2006 to May 2007.

In the light of the affidavit of undertaking, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by stating no further orders are necessary and the undertaking given by the sixth respondent i.e., the contemnor that from the academic year 2007-2008, viz., with effect from 01.06.2007, he will not run the school in the petitioner''s premises was recorded.

It was informed to this Court in the Contempt Petition that subsequent to the submission of the affidavit of undertaking and the disposal of the Writ Petition, the respondent/contemnor continue to run the school without any prior approval and he is going on admitting the students. There was no approval from the department for running the school. Though the affidavit of undertaking given by the contemnor comprised of two portions, the portion under which he agreed not to run the school was not implemented by him. Therefore, he should be punished for having disobeyed the affidavit of undertaking given by him and recorded by this Court.

When the Contempt Petition came up before this Court on 18.08.2008, statutory notice was issued to the respondent, pursuant to which, the contemnor present in Court on 16.09.2008. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time. On 10.06.2010, this Court directed, once again, the respondent to be present before this Court on 25.06.2010 at 02.15 p.m. On 25.06.2010, it was recorded that the respondent was absent and there was no representation for the respondent. On 29.06.2010, the respondent was present and the matter was further adjourned. Once again, the respondent was directed to be present in Court on 07.07.2010 vide order dated 01.07.2010. On 19.07.2010, this Court directed the respondent to appear before this Court on 21.07.2010 at 02.15 p.m. Subsequently, the matter was directed to be posted along with some other Writ Petition. Though it was heard on 29.07.2010, subsequently, the matter was made as de-part heard case. Finally, when the Contempt Petition came up before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted to this Court that the respondent/contemnor was evading taking a particular stand. Therefore, actions should be initiated against him.

In the meanwhile, the Writ Petition being W.P.(MD)No.7811 of 2009 filed by the respondent/contemnor, challenging the refusal to grant building licence by the Tahsildar, Vedasandur came up before this Court on 18.01.2011 and the respondent/contemnor withdrew the Writ Petition with liberty to pursue the remedy before the appropriate forum, after making an endorsement to that effect. Hence, that Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

Since the respondent/contemnor, after engaging a counsel, was evading in appearing before this Court and taking a definite stand on this matter, the learned counsel for the contempt petitioner was directed to implead the Sub Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station as a party to the Contempt Petition in order to give a direction to implement the orders of this Court. Accordingly, in Sub Application (MD)No.1 of 2011, this Court impleaded the Sub Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station as a party to the Contempt Petition so as to give further direction.

When the matter came up before this Court on 21.12.2011, this Court issued a warrant against the first respondent/contemnor to be produced before this Court and suitable direction was issued to the Sub Inspector of Police to produce the first respondent/contemnor by executing the warrant. Accordingly, the warrant was collected by the Sub Inspector of Police and pursuant to the warrant, the first respondent has appeared before this Court today.

When the matter was called in the morning today (23.12.2011) at a.m., the Sub Inspector of Police also informed this Court that when he recorded a statement form the first respondent/contemnor as to why he is not vacated the premises and not stopped the school, he had stated that a commission has been ordered by the Judicial Magistrate Court to inspect the school. Therefore, he was informed not to carry out any maintenance work. Since the matters are pending, he is not able to do anything further. However, he refused to sign the statement, which is sought to be recorded from him. The statement form the contempt petitioner was also recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police on 06.10.2011.

When the matter was called in the morning, the first respondent/contemnor filed an affidavit before this Court stating that he had filed a Review application to review the order made in W.P.(MD)No.5499 of 2006. The original Writ Petition was not filed for any bona fide reasons and his request for permission for running the school is pending consideration by the Educational Authorities and it was only because of illegal objections raised by the contempt petitioner, he is unable to run the school. He is having interest of the 100 students, who were attending the school and he has also filed a Review Application with a fresh affidavit of undertaking and on earlier occasion, he could not appear due to his ill health.

However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Review Application, which was at the defective stage in Review Application(MD)SR.No.37716 of 2008 with a condone delay application to condone the delay of 727 days, came up before this Court on 23.11.2011 and this Court, finding that there were no reasons for condoning the delay, especially when the Writ Petition was disposed of, due to the affidavit of undertaking given, refused to condone the delay and thus, dismissed the Review Application, which is only at the defective stage.

In any event, this Court, after going through the affidavit tendered by the first respondent/contemnor, found that he does not satisfy the requirement to purge the first respondent/contemnor from contempt. On the other hand, there is a persistence of defence shown in the affidavit viz., the first respondent/contemnor tried to make a tying knot between the two portions of the affidavit. The first portion relates to vacating the premises and the second portion relates to not to run the school without prior permission. Therefore, the first respondent/contemnor was warned that if he does not mend his way and persist his defence, this Court will have no hesitation to pass appropriate final orders in imposing the appropriate penalty commensurate with the disobedience shown by him. The Court also brought to the notice of the first respondent/contemnor that until such time, he purges himself of the contempt, in terms of Section 14(4) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, he will be detained in custody to execute the orders of this Court. For this purpose, the matter was adjourned and called at 01.00 p.m.

By the time, certain wisdom dawned on the first respondent/contemnor and he has come up with the revised affidavit. In the revised affidavit, in paragraph Nos.4 and 5, it was averred as follows:

I state that I am willing to vacate the premises wherein which the school in the name and style of James Nursery and Primary School at Vedasanthoor was running at present. At present 114 students are studying in my school. If all of sudden the school is forced to vacate the premises, the students education career and their parents expectation will be put into peril.

I state that no I am ready to vacate the premises as per the order of this Hon''ble Court in the main writ petition and I thereby abide the orders passed by this Hon''ble Court. The disobedience on my part with regarding to the main writ petition is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the above said factors. Being an Indian Citizen I have a great respect on judiciary and judicial order passed by this Hon''ble Court.

Therefore, I prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to recall the warrant issued by this Hon''ble Court in the above contempt petition dated 21.12.2011 against me and also accept this affidavit filed by me for the vacating the school premises and pass such other orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper with regarding to the fact and circumstances of this case and render justice.

In the light of the same, the first respondent/contemnor is discharged from the contempt with a strict direction that the present averment made in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the affidavit shall be forthwith obeyed by him. Considering the fact that the matter has been lingering for the last five years and the contempt arose out of the order passed by this Court as early as in the month of September, 2006, this Court do not wish to dispose of the matter by believing the bona fides of the first respondent/contemnor.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station (by name S.Sakthivel) shall also ensure that the premises is locked by 06.00 p.m., today i.e. on 23.12.2011 and report compliance to the Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, by sending a letter directly addressed to him by quoting the Contempt Petition and he should also maintain that it shall not be opened by the first respondent/contemnor under any other protection. If any further deviation is brought to the notice of this Court, this Court will have no hesitation to impose a maximum penalty of imposing the prison sentence on the first respondent.

With the above directions, the Contempt Petition stands closed. Since the first respondent/contemnor is present in Court today, pursuant to the warrant executed, he is released forthwith.