Case Note & Summary
The contempt petition arose from a writ order that quashed the withdrawal of the petitioner's cheque signing power as President of Palayanur Village Panchayat. The petitioner, having succeeded in the writ, sought restoration, but the respondent District Collector failed to implement the order for months. The procedural history shows that the writ petition was allowed on 21.09.2023, yet the respondent took no action until the contempt petition was filed. Despite receiving a contempt notice in January 2024 and the first hearing in March 2024, the respondent did not comply or file an appeal. Only after the second hearing in April 2024 did he file a writ appeal with delay, which was eventually numbered in September 2024 without any stay. Meanwhile, the petitioner was removed from her post in July 2024 under the Panchayat Act, leaving a clear window of non-compliance. The respondent offered an unconditional apology only after the Court pointed out his conduct during arguments in February-March 2025. The legal issues centered on whether the contempt petition was maintainable during the pendency of the writ appeal without a stay and whether the respondent's actions amounted to wilful disobedience. The petitioner argued that the absence of a stay meant the original order remained binding and cited Division Bench authority to support proceeding with contempt. The respondent contended that the numbering of the appeal barred the Single Judge from continuing. The Court analyzed the sequence of events and found that the respondent had ample opportunity to comply or to seek appellate relief in a timely manner but did neither. It observed that filing the appeal only after the contempt petition was already on file and without any stay order did not derogate from the original order's force. Drawing from R.N.Manikandan v. Franciscan Sisters of St. Joseph, the Court held that there is no impediment for a Single Judge to proceed with a contempt petition when the appellate court has not stayed the order. The respondent's lack of explanation for the prolonged inaction, his delay in filing the appeal, and his late apology all pointed to wilful disregard. The Court expressed its strong displeasure and concluded that the contempt petition was maintainable and that the respondent had wilfully disobeyed the order. The matter was directed to be listed for further proceedings on the question of punishment, with the apology not absolving the respondent of liability.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Duration and conduct - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 11 - The respondent, as District Collector, failed to restore the petitioner's cheque signing power as Panchayat President for nearly ten months after this Court's order dated 21.09.2023, despite multiple representations and a contempt notice. No explanation was offered for the prolonged non-compliance, and a writ appeal was filed only after the second hearing in the contempt petition. The Court held that this conduct demonstrated a clear lack of will to obey the court’s order and constituted wilful disobedience. (Paras 7-11) B) Contempt of Court - Maintainability during appeal - Effect of appeal without stay - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 11 r/w Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The respondent argued that once a writ appeal is numbered, the Single Judge cannot proceed with the contempt petition. Relying on R.N.Manikandan v. Franciscan Sisters of St. Joseph, (2018) 5 MLJ 641, the Court held that the mere pendency of a writ appeal, in the absence of any stay order from the Division Bench, does not bar the Single Judge from adjudicating the contempt petition. (Paras 12-14) C) Contempt of Court - Duty to comply or challenge - Timely action - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 11 - The Court emphasized that a litigant aggrieved by a judicial order must either comply with it or challenge it promptly within the time allowed by law. The respondent's failure to do either until the contempt petition was well underway, and his eventual belated apology, were found to underline a deliberate floating of the court's order, meriting strong judicial displeasure. (Paras 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable before a Single Judge during the pendency of a writ appeal against the underlying order when no stay has been granted by the Division Bench; and whether the respondent's failure to restore the petitioner's cheque signing power for nearly ten months despite a court order constitutes wilful disobedience.
Final Decision
The Court held that the contempt petition was maintainable despite the pendency of the writ appeal in the absence of any stay by the Division Bench. It found that the respondent had wilfully disobeyed the order dated 21.09.2023 by failing to restore the cheque signing power for nearly ten months, with no valid explanation. The respondent's belated unconditional apology was not considered sufficient to absolve him of liability, and the Court expressed its strong displeasure at his conduct. The matter was directed to be listed for further proceedings on the question of punishment.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Contempt of court
- wilful disobedience
- maintainability of contempt during appeal without stay
- duty to comply with court orders
- Section 11 Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Section 205 Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act
- 1994
- rule of law
- effect of belated appeal and apology
