AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S. Karnan, J.—The petitioner herein has filed the Contempt Petition, u/s 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 70/71, to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the Order of this Court dated 04.05.2012 made in W.P. No. 12947 of 2012. The Short facts of the case are as follows:
The writ petitioner namely S Kumaresan had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 12947 of 2012, against the respondents namely The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai-35 and The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai-28, to direct them to consider his representation dated 24.01.2012 in accordance with law by issuing a sale deed in his favour for the Flat bearing No. F22, Luz Mylapore Scheme, HIG Type Design, Mylapore Luz Scheme R.S. No. 1693, Block No. 35 at No. 180, Luz Church Road, Luz Corner, Mylapore, Chennai-4. After receipt of the said representation dated 24.01.2012, the respondents have remained silent. Therefore, the writ petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation.
The writ petition came up before this Court on 04.05.2012. The very competent counsels appearing on either side made their submissions effectively. On considering their submissions, this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner''s representation dated 24.01.2012 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after conducting enquiry, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order. After receipt of the said order, the respondents had not carried out this Court''s Order and hence the writ petitioner had issued a legal notice to the respondents and requested them to carry out the Court''s Order. This was not done. Therefore, the contempt proceedings has been initiated.
The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents had not conducted any enquiry as per this Court''s Order dated 04.05.2012, within the stipulated period. The writ petitioner is entitled to receive a sale deed from the respondents since he is the lawful owner of the property as per the allotment order passed by the respondents. The writ petitioner had paid the entire sale consideration to the original allottee by way of demand draft for Rs. 14.50,000/-. The original allottee has no objection to execute a sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner. As such the respondents ought to have executed a sale deed in his favour since the Tamil Nadu Housing Board''s Rules and Regulations are duly permitted for the execution of the sale deed.
The highly competent counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has vehemently argued that the respondents had issued a notice on 07.08.2013 to the writ petitioner for an enquiry and the enquiry was conducted on 12.08.2013 at about 03.30 p.m., and they had passed a suitable order stating that the original allottee Mrs. C.M. Haneefa, and from her the writ petitioner made a sale agreement which is against the Rules and Regulations of the Housing Board, as such the writ petitioner''s request was duly rejected on 16.08.2013 after assigning lawful valid reasons.
Further, the very competent counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the writ petitioner had sent a representation to the respondents and both the respondents are not the competent authorities to act on the said representation. Actually, the Managing Director of the Housing Board, who is the recognized top officer to decide the said representation. However, the representation had been duly considered after due enquiry. Therefore, the contempt petition is not at all maintainable. Hence, the highly competent counsel prays before the Court to dismiss the contempt petition.
Per contra, the highly competent counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted further that the original allottee had executed a power of attorney and also executed a sale agreement and undertaking letters in favour of the writ petitioner after receiving the full sale consideration. Further, the allotment order was issued by the respondents on 03.01.1996. As per the allotment conditions, the writ petitioner is entitled to purchase the said property from the original allottee. As such the writ petitioner had purchased the said property in the year 2001, after paying the entire sale consideration as full and final as per the demand of the original allottee, as such the writ petitioner becomes the owner of the property. The mode of payment is a bona fide one that is a demand draft in favour of the original allottee, as such the writ petitioner is the lawful owner of the property. As per the Indian Contract Act, the agreement entered into between the original allottee and the writ petitioner is sustainable under law. Further, there is no due to the Housing Board regarding the property allotment. Therefore, the Housing Board Authorities have executed the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner since he is in physical possession and enjoying the said property without any interference from the date of agreement until now.
In reply the highly competent counsel for the respondents has submitted that the property had been allotted to one Mrs. C.M. Haneefa, who paid the installments and other dues. As per the original allotment, the original allottee is the recognized person to receive the sale deed after complying to the necessary formalities as required by the Board, as such there is no nexus between the writ petitioner and the Housing Board. If any agreement made between the original allottee and the writ petitioner, such an agreement will not binding over the Housing Board, since the entire civil rights have not been transferred to the original allottee by way of sale deed and therefore the writ petitioner''s relief as per the writ petition and subsequent contempt proceedings would not be maintainable. Therefore, the highly competent counsel prays to dismiss the contempt proceedings since the respondents are dutiful officers and they are having due respect to this Court and also duly carrying out the directions of this Hon''ble Court.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side, and on perusing the order of the respondents dated 16.08.2013, this Court does not find any infirmities or discrepancy or shortcoming or lapse or lack of service on the part of the respondents in order to carry out this Court''s direction. Further, this Court appreciates the performance of the respondents. Hence, the contempt petition does not have any force to permit it. In the result, this contempt petition is dismissed since the Order dated 04.05.2012 made in W.P. No. 12947 of 2012 has been duly carried out. No costs.