The Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai sent the Complaint Petition for inquiry to the police authority whereupon a First Information Report FIR was lodged.
Admittedly, a direction was also issued to the Appellant herein by the Executive Engineer to remove the said tea stall.
Engineer, Thiru.
The said companytempt petition was dismissed.
R.C.No.1465 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the revision petition filed by the Appellant herein against an order dated 25.8.2003 was dismissed.
In the said charge sheet only the allegations made in the companyplaint petition were repeated.
Relying on or on the basis of the said statement, the Appellant herein was made an accused and a charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer also against him stating In the said case, it was ordered that the tea shop which is in possession of the PW1 should be vacated subject to Rules and Regulation.
The Public Works Department thereafter issued directions to the Executive Engineer to take steps for removal thereof on or about 9.5.1996.
In the meanwhile, however, the said tea stall was removed whereupon a companytempt petition was filed against the Appellant.
The wife of the respondent No.2 was running a kiosk in the hospital premises.
R. Jayasingh, BE.,
It is number disputed that during investigation the name of the Appellant was taken by one Thiru V. Ramarajan, Executive Engineer, P.W.D., North Presidency Division, Chepauk, Chennai, who alleged I am working as an Executive Engineer in P.W.D. The Kilpauk Medical College wing companyes under my jurisdiction, wherein inside the campus, Tmt.
from the hospital premises as they were causing inconvenience to the public and as food stuffs were also supplied from the said kiosks, bunks and tea stalls which were prepared in unhygienic companyditions causing health hazards.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction, the Appellant herein requested the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk to give police protection for the purpose of causing such removal.
The wife of the respondent herein, who had been running a tea stall in the said premises, was requested through a letter by the Executive Engineer to remove the same as the Dean of Kilpauk Medical College had made such a request in that behalf.
A writ petition was filed by the wife of the respondent No.1 herein, which was disposed of by the High Court with certain directions.
Lakshmi Velayutham ran a tea shop on lease agreement and as the Dean of the Medical companylege did number give numberobjection certificate to the Shop from 1992, the lease agreement period was number extended.
The Chief Engineer also directed the Executive Engineer to take steps in furtherance of the said G.O.M.No.2055 dated 30.10.1987.
A Government order was issued for removing all the said kiosks on 30.10.1987.
Further the Dean of the companylege wrote several letters stating that due to the tea shop, health hazards are caused and therefore requested to remove the said shop.
Jayasingh, former Asst.
A Complaint Petition was filed by the respondent No.1 herein, who is the husband of the said owner of the tea stall against the Dean of Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Chennai purported to be under Sections 166, 448, 427, 380, 392 and 506 II of the Indian Penal Code on 3rd September, 1997.
The Government of Tamil Nadu had taken a policy decision to remove all kiosks, bunks and tea stalls, etc.
On obtaining such companyrt order, A1 and A2 even after knowing the order, with the intention to cause loss to the companyplainant, on 2.7.97 at about 11.00 a.m., A1 Thiru.
The matter thereupon came before this Court.
2.7.97, that he removed the shop of said Lakhsmi Velayutham on 1.7.97.
Ganesan former dean of KMC and A2 Thiru.
P.W.D. KMC wing, Kilpauk, Chennai 10 who was in charge of KMC area, informed in his letter No.16K/97 dt.
Engineer engaged men on his own supervision and removed the shop.
Engineer, PWD Kilpauk, Hospital wing with the help of some unknown hooligans, went to the tea shop of the companyplainant which was functioning inside the Kilpauk Medical College Hopsital campus, and without taking any legal steps as per the Court order, they trespassed the teashop and the adjoining fancy stones and removed the refrigerator, Mixie, Stone, Biscuit which were kept for business and A1 Thiru.
Accordingly, the Asst.
The said decision was rendered by this Court on 21st February, 1997.
The Asst.
Ganesan look those articles in his custody and with the help of the hooligans, he demolished the tea shop built by the companyplainant PW1 in his own companyt which was situated in the car shed, in the Hospital which came under A1s jurisdiction and caused damages to PW1 to an extent of Rs.3 Lakhs, and he removed the aforesaid valuables belonging to PW1 with the help of unknown persons from the car shed inside the campus and misappropriated the same and thereby caused loss illegally to PW1 to an extent of Rs.4 Lakhs.
Today, 26.4.2000, you the Inspector of G3 Kilpauk P.S. enquire me and I narrated the above details.
B. SINHA, J This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.
