Dismissed

K.Shanmugasundaram v. v.Saravanan I.A.S.

Madras HC23 Nov 2021CONT P/468/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, petitioners alleged wilful disobedience by the respondent officer for conducting an independent enquiry instead of considering prior committee orders. The single judge held that the enquiry clarified errors and found no disobedience, closing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is closed with no punishment awarded to the respondent.

K.Shanmugasundaram Vs v.Saravanan I.A.S. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Cont. P.No.468 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 16.11.2021

¶4

DELIVERED ON : 23.11.2021

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶7

Cont.P.No.468 of 2021 in W.P. No.17970 of 2020

¶8

K. Shanmugasundaram

¶9

K. Mullaiventhan 3. S. Nimal Adithya 4. S. Sudeeksha 5. M. Kabilan 6. M. Nanda Varshini ... Petitioners All are residing at Sekkarapatti Village, Kadayampatti Taluk, Salem District

¶10

Vs.

¶11

V. Saravanan, I.A.S. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Mettur, Salem District ... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondent for the wilful disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P. No.17970 of 2020 dated 10.12.2020 under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

¶13

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

¶14

1/4

¶15

Cont. P.No.468 of 2021

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.S. Doraiswamy For Respondent : Mr.V. Veluchamy Additional Government Pleader.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Order of the Court was made by R.HEMALATHA, J.

¶19

The matter in issue pertains to the issuance of Hindu-Kurumans Schedule Tribe community certificate in favour of the petitioners 3 to 6. The Division Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 10.12.2020, in W.P. No.17970 of 2020, had observed as follows:

¶20

" 5. This Court, in the facts and circumstances, without

¶21

going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioners in

¶22

this writ petition, directs the respondent to take into consideration the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III, dated 22.08.2019 and 21.10.2019, and dispose of the application, dated 18.11.2019, submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible not later than eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the decision taken to the

¶23

petitioners."

¶24

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

¶25

2/4

¶26

Cont. P.No.468 of 2021

¶27

Mr.S. Doraiswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that though the Division Bench of this Court had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, Salem, to take into consideration the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III, dated 22.08.2019 and 21.10.2019, and dispose the application of the petitioners, the respondent in utter disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, conducted an independent discreet enquiry and held that the first petitioner

¶28

does not belong to Kurumans (ST) community and that he belongs to Kurumba community which comes under MBC category. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent by making a discreet enquiry instead of simply taking "into consideration" the orders dated 22.08.2019 and 21.10.2019 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III, had disobeyed this Court's order and invited action under contempt of court.

¶29

However, the affidavit of the respondent clarifies the status of the petitioners. According to the respondent, the community certificates already issued to the first and second petitioners were erroneous. In fact, the respondent had owned up the fault of the Tahsildar, Omalur, who issued the community certificate No.31936 on 18.08.1988 to the first petitioner. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further stated that a thorough enquiry into the status of the other relatives of

¶30

3/4

¶31

Cont. P.No.468 of 2021

¶32

the petitioners revealed that there was no one belonging to the said

¶33

community in the village/locality, where the present petitioners are living.

¶34

The order passed by the respondent was communicated to the petitioners. A proposal to reconsider the proceedings of the State Level Scrutiny Committee also has been sent to them in the light of the new findings. In the circumstances, the petitioners can work out their remedy as against the said orders, if so advised. This Court had directed the respondent only to take into consideration the proceedings of the Tamil

¶35

Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee-III, dated 22.08.2019 and 21.10.2019.

¶36

Therefore, there is no wilful disobedience of the orders by the respondent.

¶37

In view of the above, this Contempt Petition is closed.

¶38

SD/-

¶39

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶40

bga

¶41

//Certified to be true copy//

¶42

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶43

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25^th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format. GS/11/01/2022

¶44

¶45

The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Mettur, Salem District

¶46

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

¶47

4/4

K.Shanmugasundaram v. v.Saravanan I.A.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Shanmugasundaram v. v.Saravanan I.A.S.

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

Chellappan Vs the Principal Secretary to the Government

Gowthami Vs the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu

Birudha Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Its

Dhilip Kumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

M/s.Palpap Ichinichi Software Vs Government of India

Sathiyaraj Vs the Government of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its