Dismissed

T.Namasivayam v. Tmt. M.K.S. Subashini

Madras HC4 Sept 2018CONT P/1885/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition challenged the respondents for allegedly disobeying an interim stay of recovery order by withholding sanctioned benefits. The Court held that the interim order only prevented further recovery during the pendency of the writ petition and did not mandate immediate settlement of disputed amounts. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act stood dismissed.

T.Namasivayam Vs Tmt. M.K.S. Subashini — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04-09-2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

Contempt Petition No.1885 of 2018
in
W.M.P.No.18462 of 2017
in
W.P.No.17006 of 2017
T.Namasivayam .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tmt.M.K.S.Subashini,
Chief Educational Officer,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
2.M.Manimaran,
Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Pudukottai Ullur,
Thanjavur District.
3.Thiru A.Balakrishnan,
Sub-Treasury Officer,
Pattukkottai,
Thanjavur District. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order of this Court made in WMP No.18462 of 2017 in WP No.17006 of 2017 dated 5.7.2017.

¶8

For Petitioner .. Mr.R.Saseetharan For Respondents .. Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The present contempt petition has been filed to

¶13

punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order of this Court passed in WMP No.18462 of 2017 in WP No.17006 of 2017 dated 5.7.2017.

¶14

vehemently contended that this Court has passed an interim order of granting “Interim Stay of Recovery Alone”.

¶15

Therefore, the respondents ought to have granted the amounts already sanctioned by the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu.

¶16

of an opinion that in respect of the disputed amount, as per the impugned order dated 15.5.2017, is also withheld on the ground that the writ petition is pending. Such a stand

¶17

taken by the respondents are contemptuous and therefore, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present contempt petition.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate, appearing on

¶19

behalf of the respondents, states that the respondents have not effected any recovery and they have implemented the

¶20

order as it is. The interim order granted by this Court is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that “Interim Stay of Recovery Alone”. Thus, the

¶21

¶22

respondents have not effected any recovery. In respect of all other disputes in relation to the claim of the amount, the same is to be considered on merits and in accordance with law and therefore, the respondents have not violated the order granted by this Court.

¶23

In respect of the interim order, all

¶24

recoveries are stopped as per the impugned order and no recovery has been effected and the disputed amount, as per the impugned order, is withheld. If in the event of settling the entire amount, then it may not be possible for the authorities to recover the same in the event of rejection of the writ petition in the final hearing. Contrarily, if the writ petitioner succeeds, the amount as per the orders of the Accountant General shall be settled

¶25

in favour of the writ petitioner. Thus, the respondents

¶26

have not effected any recovery. Contrarily, they have kept the disputed amount pending in view of the fact that the

¶27

writ petition is to be decided on merits.

¶28

This Court is of an opinion that the

¶29

Accountant General of Tamil Nadu sanctioned the benefits in

¶30

favour of the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 7.4.2017. The impugned recovery order has been passed in

¶31

proceedings dated 15.5.2017. The interim order has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

granted in the present writ petition on 5.7.2017, after a

¶33

¶34

lapse of about two months from the date of issuance of the impugned order.

¶35

amounts and not recovered any further amount from the writ

¶36

petitioner. The very purport of the interim order is to ensure that during the pendency of the writ petition, no amount is recovered from the writ petitioner. In respect of payment and settlement of the benefits, it is entirely, a different issue and a different cause, which is to be adjudicated.

¶37

means that no further recovery should be inflicted on the writ petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition.

¶38

Such an interim order granted must have prospective effect

¶39

and the same cannot have a retrospective effect of grant of other amounts, which all are to be considered at the time

¶40

of final hearing of the writ petition.

¶41

interpretation is permissible in respect of an interim order granted in the writ petition. Once again, this Court

¶42

made it clear that if any interim order of “Stay of

¶43

Recovery Alone” is granted, then the authorities have to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶44

ensure that no further amount has been recovered from the

¶45

¶46

writ petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition.

¶47

This being the scope of the interim order,

¶48

the writ petitioner has not established any prima facie case for the purpose of entertaining the present contempt

¶49

petition. It is left open for the writ petitioner to adjudicate all the merits and the demerits at the time of

¶50

final hearing of the writ petition. It is left open for the

¶51

writ petitioner to move appropriate application for the

¶52

purpose of redressing his grievances.

¶53

11. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands dismissed.

¶54

SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) svn //Certified to be true copy//

¶55

Dated at Madras this the day of 2018.

¶56

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶57

from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶58

PS/10/10/2018

¶59

¶60

1.Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur District,

¶61

Thanjavur.

¶62

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶63

¶64

2.The Headmaster,

¶65

Government Higher Secondary School, Pudukottai Ullur, Thanjavur District.

¶66

3.The Sub-Treasury Officer, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

¶67

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.Namasivayam v. Tmt. M.K.S. Subashini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Namasivayam v. Tmt. M.K.S. Subashini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Baskaran, Vs The Commissioner

Mrs.M.Chellamal, Vs The Principal Secretary to

Dr.S.D.Dineshkumar Vs The Registrar

The Government Vs The Chairman and Managing

R.Punitha Vs The Superintendent Engineer

A.Abdul Majeed, Vs The Superintending Engineer