AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 194 wordsG. Rajasuria, J.—This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent for the wilful disobedience of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 6299 of 2008 dated 22.07.2008.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. D. Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent.
At the time of hearing, the learned Government Advocate filed a copy of the order passed by the District Collector, Trichy and stated that the order has been complied with.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that so far the District Collector, Trichy has not initiated penal action as against the petitioner.
The learned Government Advocate would correctly and convincingly submit that on considering the representation, the District Collector has chosen to seek the advice of the State Election Commission for initiating action.
Hence, in these circumstances, this Court cannot arrive at a conclusion that the District Collector, Trichy has committed contempt. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is closed, however it is observed that it is open for the petitioner to observe further as to what transpires and thereafter depending upon the circumstances, he could initiate fresh action.