@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
C.S. Karnan, J.@mdashThe petitioner herein has filed the Contempt Petition, u/s 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act 70/71, to punish the
respondents for their wilful disobedience of the Order of this Court dated 05.02.2013 made in W.P. No. 8743 of 2004. The Short facts of the
case are as follows:
The writ petitioner Mr. V. Gopi had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 8743 of 2004, against the respondents, for issuance of a writ of certiorarified
mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned proceedings vide Proc. Nos. 13760/A2/2002-1, 13760/A2/2002-2,
13760/A2/2002-3 and 13760/A2/2002-4, dated 20.02.2004, issued by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently to direct the
respondents not to degrade the petitioner, who was working as a Steno-Typist Grade-I from the year 1989.
2. The second respondent had filed a counter affidavit and strongly opposed the writ petition. When the writ petition came up for final hearing
before this Court on 05.02.2013, Mr. P. Thiagarajan, competent counsel, made heated arguments on behalf of the petitioner and the highly
competent Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate for the second respondent had also
made heated counter arguments. Then, this Court passed an order on merits and quashed the impugned orders of the second respondent vide
Proc. Nos. 3760/A2/2002-1, 13760/A2/2002-2, 13760/A2/2002-3 and 13760/A2/2002-4, dated 20.02.2004, since they were not capable for
further processing.
3. However, this Court''s order had not been carried out by the competent top most I.A.S. Officer i.e., second respondent in the writ proceedings,
within a reasonable period. Therefore, the writ petitioner issued a legal notice to the second respondent on 20.03.2013 and requested him to carry
out the order dated 05.02.2013 passed in W.P. No. 8743 of 2004. After receipt of the said notice, the recognized officer had not done so.
Hence, the writ petitioner has initiated the contempt proceedings.
4. When the matter came up for hearing on 19.08.2013, the highly competent Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent has
vehemently argued that in order to carry out this Court Order, a lengthy administrative process had to be observed and hence, the delay was
caused. There is absolutely no disrespect with the Court''s order. The second respondent, a top most I.A.S. Officer, is always maintaining great
respect with this Court''s Order, as such after following lengthy administrative process, the second respondent had duly executed this Court''s
order on 23.08.2013 in his proceedings No. 13760/A0-2/2002. As such, the contempt proceedings is not maintainable against the respondents
since there is no disobedience or wilful or wantonness to execute this Court''s Order.
5. The highly competent Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Additional
Advocate General.
6. The highly competent counsel for the writ petitioner has argued that the second respondent had issued orders to the writ petitioner on
23.08.2013 as such, the writ petitioner''s remedy had been granted and as such this Court''s order had been duly executed. Due to some delay,
the contempt proceedings had been initiated against the respondents as such there is no lack of service on the side of the respondents.
7. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and on verifying the second respondent''s order dated 23.08.2013,
this Court does not find any discrepancy or shortcomings or lapse or lack of service on the side of the second respondent. This Court, after seeing
this execution order, is fully satisfied with the said officer and this Court appreciates his effective service and who has also showed due respect to
this Court, as such the contempt proceedings stand failed. In the result, this contempt petition is dismissed, since the top most I.A.S. Officer had
duly executed this Court''s order dated 05.02.2013, made in W.P. No. 8743 of 2004. No costs.