This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for having wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court, dated 18.3.2005, made in W.P.No.9137 of 2005.
2. The petitioner has stated that he had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.9137 of 2005, praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to remove the encroachment and occupation of the lands belonging to Ellai Amman Temple, at Ambur.
3. This Court, by an order, dated 18.3.2005, had directed the respondents 1 to 6 to consider the representation of the petitioner and to take appropriate action, in respect of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner or send a proper reply to the petitioner, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
4. In spite of the order of this Court, dated 18.3.2005, having been served on the respondents, no action had been taken by them, pursuant to the said order. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present contempt petition.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fifth respondent.
6. Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:
"5. I deny the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the affidavit. It is absolutely incorrect to state that I have not taken any action in pursuance of the order dated 18.3.2005 passed by this Honourable Court. I state that I have taken action and the same was intimate to the petitioner through the letter Na.No.A1/1233/88, dated 10.4.2005. The petitioner has confirmed as having seen the letter dated 10.4.2005 in the enquiry which was held on 16.10.2006. I am enclosing the letter dated 10.4.2005. Hence, I have obeyed the order dated 18.3.2005 passed by this Honourable Court and there is no wilful disobedience on may part as alleged by the petitioner."
7. Further, the fifth respondent had also tendered his unconditional apology in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that he had committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 18.3.2005.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had also submitted that an enquiry has been conducted relating to the complaint made by the petitioner and necessary action has been taken in that regard. The petitioner has also been informed about the said proceedings. Further, as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, a letter dated 10.4.2005, had also been dispatched to the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 18.3.2005. In such circumstances, the contempt petition is devoid of merits.
9. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondents for contempt of Court.
10. From the records placed before this Court, it is seen that a letter had been dispatched to the petitioner, on 10.4.2005, within the period of eight weeks prescribed by this Court, in its order, dated 18.3.2005, made in W.P.No.9137 of 2005. Further, it is noted that the Tashildar, Vaniyambadi, had submitted a report, dated 16.10.2006, in Na.Ka.B4/8358/2005, regarding the action taken relating to the complaint made by the petitioner.
11. In such circumstances, this court does not find sufficient reasons to punish the respondents for contempt of Court. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs.
lan