This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 18.4.2005, made in W.P.(MD) No.3369 of 2005.
2. The writ petitioner had filed the writ petition, in W.P.(MD) No.3369 of 2005, claiming that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building bearing Door No.896 (old No.5-B-14/3-C), Nehru Road, Sivakasi. She had prayed for a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from interfering, in any way, with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of her property. She had submitted that the respondents may contemplate to evict the petitioner from her property and that they may also demolish the building belonging to her. This Court, while dismissing the writ petition stating that the writ petition cannot be entertained, merely on the apprehension of the petitioner, had observed that the officials are duty bound to obey the law and that they should issue proper notice to the persons aggrieved and that they should also be given an opportunity of hearing before they are evicted.
3. The claim of the petitioner in the contempt petition is that the respondent had violated the order passed by this Court, on 18.4.2005, by evicting her from the property in question, without giving a reasonable opportunity to her, as contemplated by this Court. Therefore, she had prayed that the respondent may be punished for the contempt of Court for the willful disobedience of the order, dated 18.4.2005, made in W.P.(MD) No.3369 of 2005.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the respondent had followed all the necessary procedures contemplated under law before evicting the petitioner from the property in question. A notice had also been issued to her before the eviction was carried out. In fact, the notice issued by the respondent, in encroachment notice No.16980/2000F2, dated 12.1.2007, had been challenged by the petitioner in W.P (MD) No.1062 of 2007. A division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 13.3.2007, had dismissed the said writ petition stating that the writ petition had become infructuous, in view of the fact that the encroachment in question had been removed. Further, this Court. in its order, dated 18.4.2005 had merely made an observation that the respondent is expected to follow the due process of law, in evicting encroachers. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 18.4.2005, in W.P.(MD) No.3369 of 2005. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs.
lan