The petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging violation of the order of status quo granted by this Court on 1.3.2017. While disposing the writ petition, no doubt a direction was issued to the District Collector, Tiruppur to consider the representations dated 3.1.2017 and 24.1.2017 of the petitioner on merit and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, the respondents were directed to maintain status quo.
2. A detailed reply has been filed by the Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that at no point of time, the order of status quo granted by this Court was violated by the respondents. The allegation made against the respondents that there has been a violation of the status quo order is wholly unsustainable, when in fact the letter given by the petitioner Mrs.B.Sharmila Banu on 21.12.2016 clearly shows and admits the erection of tower in her hand, because, in the said letter, the petitioner has mentioned clealry that the erected tower to be removed. Again bringing to the notice of this Court the last paragraph of the representation dated 24.11.2016, the learned standing counsel submitted that the petitioner has clearly admitted the erection of tower in her land.
3. A reading of the last paragraph of the representation dated 24.11.2016 also clearly shows that the respondents have erected the tower in the petitioner's land even prior to 24.11.2016. Therefore the question of entertaining the allegation made by the petitioner that after the order was passed by this Court to consider the representations dated 3.1.2017 and 24.1.2017 by the District Collector, Tiruppur, the respondents have violated the status quo order by erecting the tower is wholly misconceived. Secondly, the contention made by the petitioner that the said representation dated 24.11.2016 was not made by the petitioner is wholly unbelievable and per se liable to be rejected. The reason is that the petitioner herself gave her representation on 24.11.2016 and the seal with acknowledgment made by the office of the respondents clearly shows that the said representation was received on 28.11.2016. Therefore, it cannot be construed as concocted or created for the purpose of this case. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands dismissed.
17.11.2017 ss T.RAJA, J.
ss Cont.P.No.1588 of 2017 17.11.2017