Case Note & Summary
The contempt petition arose from an alleged disobedience of an order dated 22.02.2024 in WP 2966 of 2024 passed by the Madras High Court. The petitioner, C. Ramesh, sought to punish the respondents, Karunanthi (Assistant Engineer, TNEB) and Venkatesan, for contempt of court. The first respondent circulated an order dated 28.02.2025, claiming compliance with the earlier directions. The petitioner contended that the order did not properly appreciate his case and that his documents were not considered. The respondent's counsel pointed out that a notice dated 21.03.2024 was sent to the petitioner, but he did not choose to appear. The court noted that an order had been passed pursuant to the earlier directions and that the petitioner had failed to participate despite notice. In light of this, the contempt petition was rendered infructuous. The court closed the contempt petition, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the order dated 28.02.2025 in accordance with law. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Civil Contempt - Compliance with Earlier Order - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(b) - The contempt petition alleged disobedience of order dated 22.02.2024 in WP 2966 of 2024. The respondent authority passed an order on 28.02.2025 in purported compliance. The petitioner contended that the order improperly appreciated the matter and ignored his documents. The respondent had issued notice dated 21.03.2024 to the petitioner, who failed to appear. Held, the contempt petition closed granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 28.02.2025 in accordance with law. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents had committed contempt by disobeying the order dated 22.02.2024 in W.P. No. 2966 of 2024.
Final Decision
The contempt petition is closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 28.02.2025 in accordance with law. No costs.
Law Points
- contempt of court
- compliance with earlier order
- liberty to challenge
- non-appearance despite notice
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 8
Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth
For Petitioner: K. Nagarajan; For Contemnors: Ms. M. Sindhuzaa for Mr. L. Jai Venkatesh, Standing Counsel for R1
Karunanthi (The Assistant Engineer TNEB, Red Hills, Chennai) and Venkatesan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging disobedience of a court order.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to punish the respondents for contempt of court for disobeying the order in W.P. No. 2966 of 2024 dated 22.02.2024.
Filing Reason
The respondents allegedly failed to comply with the directions issued in the earlier writ petition order.
Previous Decisions
Order in W.P. No. 2966 of 2024 dated 22.02.2024. No other previous decisions mentioned.
Issues
Whether the respondents had committed contempt by disobeying the order dated 22.02.2024 in W.P. No. 2966 of 2024.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the order passed on 28.02.2025 did not appreciate the matter properly and his documents were not considered.
Respondents argued that they had complied with the earlier order by passing an order on 28.02.2025 and that the petitioner did not appear despite notice dated 21.03.2024.
Ratio Decidendi
When a respondent authority passes an order in compliance with an earlier court direction, and the petitioner fails to appear before the authority despite notice, the contempt petition becomes infructuous and is liable to be closed, leaving the petitioner to challenge the fresh order on its merits.
Judgment Excerpts
Today learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent circulates a copy of order dated 28.02.2025 per directions under dated 22.02.2024.
The contempt petitioner is unhappy with this order as according to him, the matter has not been appreciated in proper perspective and none of the documents placed by him for appreciation of the authority, considered.
However, learned counsel for the respondent draw attention to the fact that notice dated 21.03.2024 referred to under order dated 28.02.2025 was sent to the petitioner and he did not chose to appear.
In light of the aforesaid, this contempt petition is closed though granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge order dated 28.02.2025 in accordance with law. No costs.
Procedural History
The writ petition WP No. 2966 of 2024 was disposed of on 22.02.2024 with directions. Contempt petition No. 246 of 2025 filed alleging disobedience. On 05.03.2025, the court closed the contempt petition with liberty to challenge the subsequent order dated 28.02.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
