As per judgment dated 11.4.2014 in W.P.(C) No.5365 of 2014, the following direction was issued. : “In view of the above this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to comply with the directions in Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment”.
2. This contempt of court case is filed by the petitioner alleging that the direction of this Court referred to above has not been complied with. An affidavit has been filed stating that, the disputed transformer has already been removed in compliance with the directions of this Court. The present complaint of the petitioner is regarding a stay wire that continues to remain in his property which, according to the respondent is necessary for the purpose of supporting the line that was already there in the property. It is part of an old pole that, according to the respondents cannot be removed.
Contempt Case (C) No.816 of 2014 2
3. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner contending that, the said stay wire has been placed in retaliation to the act of the petitioner in approaching this Court, only recently. The above allegation is refuted by the counsel for the respondents.
4. Since the transformer has already been removed, the direction of this Court has already been complied with. If the petitioner wants additional directions for removal of the stay wire that is in existence in his property, the petitioner would have to seek them on the original side. It is not possible for me to issue any fresh direction in this contempt of court case.
In view of the above, this contempt of court case is closed, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek further direction, on the original side, if he has any further grievance.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.