Dismissed

The Correspondent, v. Mr. Natarajan

Madras HC6 Sept 2019CONT P(MD)/1438/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge disposed of a contempt petition alleging disobedience of an order. The court held that since a writ appeal was pending, remedies should be sought in the appeal or via a fresh contempt petition under the appeal, thus closing the current filing.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition closed; petitioner may file a Contempt in the Writ Appeal depending on the result thereof.

The Correspondent, Vs Mr. Natarajan — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Cont.P.(MD)No.1438 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.09.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

Cont.P.(MD)No.1438 of 2018

¶5

The Correspondent, St.Aloysius Middle School, Chinthamani Post, Munanjipatti Via, Tirunelveli District-627 355.

¶6

... Petitioner/Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.

¶7

Natarajan, District Educational Officer, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. (Previously called as District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli.)

¶8

... Contemnor/3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, for the willful disobedience of the order dated 27.06.2017 in Rev.Appl.(MD)No.31 of 2017 in W.P.(MD)No.17930 of 2016 passed by this Court.

¶10

Prayer in Rev.Appl.(MD)No.31 of 2017:-

¶11

The Review Application Petition filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order dated 23.02.2017 in W.P(MD)No.17930 of 2016 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.

¶12

Prayer in WP(MD). 17930/ 2016 :

¶13

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent Additional Assistant Elementary Educational officer vide A.Thi.Mu.No. 820/A4/16 dated 22.06.2016, quash the same and further Direct the respondents herein to approve the appointment of S.Franklin Amala Jacks as Secondary Grade Teacher in the petitioner school w.e.f. 20.04.2016 and disburse grant - in - aid towards salary and other attendant benefits.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ajith Geethan

¶15

For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy, Spl.G.P. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/2

¶17

Cont.P.(MD)No.1438 of 2018

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Contempt Petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 27.06.2017 passed in in Rev.Appl.(MD)No.31 of 2017 in W.P.(MD)No.17930 of 2016 by this Court.

¶20

2.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as against the order of this Court dated 27.06.2017, a writ appeal has been filed in W.A.(MD) No.237 of 2018, which is pending consideration.

¶21

3.In case the writ appeal is dismissed or the order of the learned Single Judge is modified, on both grounds, the contempt proceedings will lie only before the Division Bench and not before the Single Judge. If the writ appeal is allowed, then the writ petitioner may not get any relief. If any order is passed in the writ appeal, either confirming or modifying as stated supra, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a Contempt in the Writ Appeal and not in the Writ Petition, unless and until the Apex Court specifically directs the High Court to decide the issue. Taking note of the principle laid down in Kunhayammed case reported in 2000 (6) SCC 359 and K.K.Dineshan case reported in 2014 16 SCC 88 , the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and the Contempt Petition is closed. It is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy depending upon the result in the Writ Appeal.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/TRUE COPY/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

Mr.Natarajan, District Educational Officer, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-85864[F] dated 09/09/2019 )

¶29

Cont.P.(MD)No.1438 of 2018

¶30

nbj

¶31

JM/09.10.2019/2P/3C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

The Correspondent, v. Mr. Natarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Correspondent, v. Mr. Natarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Rangan, Vs The Director of

K.M.Gunasekaran Vs D.Sabitha IAS

A.Chidambaram Vs The Principal Secretary to

S.Gunasekaran Vs Ravindan

S.Juliya Vs Mr. Samuvel

D.Devaraj, Vs v. Balachandrababu