SupremeCourt refuses to hear plea against AG R Venkataramani seeking criminal contempt against him Petitioner in Person: I have filed a mentioning memo in this case, I have served it to the AG by name R Venkatramani but R Venkatramani is under contempt of court under Article 145 , so Iam appearing in the SC
SupremeCourt refuses to hear plea against AG R Venkataramani seeking criminal contempt against him
Petitioner in Person: I have filed a mentioning memo in this case, I have served it to the AG by name R Venkatramani but R Venkatramani is under contempt of court under Article 145 , so Iam appearing in the SC
![W.A.No.2284 of 2021 W.A.No.2284 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.14503 of 2021 T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J. [Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. 2.The issue involved in the writ petition filed by the appellant was whether retrospective revision of Property Tax could be done and Surcharge can also be demanded on such retrospectively revised Property Tax. –W.A.No.2284 of 2021 dismissed the writ petition largely on the ground that there is large scale non-collection of Property Tax across the State and that the High Court, being the custodian of the Constitution of India, is obligated to initiate appropriate action to ensure that the Constitutional principles and mandates are being followed by the Executives and all concerned, scrupulously. After making several other observations, the Court has dismissed the writ petition and issued various directions as contained in Para No.31 of the impugned order. 5.Prima facie, we are of the view that the directions contained in Para No.31 (ii) to (vi) are beyond the scope of the writ petition and in a writ petition, not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the question would be whether the Writ Court can issue such directions. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for entertaining this Writ Appeal. 6.Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is admitted. The appellant had the benefit of order of interim stay during the pendency of the writ petition. Hence, there shall be an order of interim stay.-](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
