Dismissed

R.Bharanidharan v. K.Muthukaruppan

Madras HC4 Apr 2022CONT P/217/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge adjudicated a Contempt Petition where the petitioner challenged non-compliance with an order later superseded by a Writ Appeal judgment. Applying the Doctrine of Merger from Supreme Court precedents, the Court held the original order merged with the Appeal and dismissed the file, directing the petitioner to file contempt in the Appeal.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition closed as the Single Judge lacks jurisdiction; petitioner directed to file Contempt in the Writ Appeal.

R.Bharanidharan Vs K.Muthukaruppan — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Cont. Petn. No.217 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.04.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

Contempt Petition No.217 of 2022

¶7

R.Bharanidaran, No.16/H, Bharathidasan Street, Alli Nagar, Polur. .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Thiru.K.Muthukaruppan, B.E., Managing Director

¶10

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

¶11

No.3/137, Salai Md, Vazhuthareddy Post

¶12

Villupuram - 602 605

¶13

2.Thiru.P.Polaiah, B.E., General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

¶14

Vellore

¶15

3.Tmt.Pushpalatha General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vainggal, T.V.Malai .. Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the order passed in W.P. No.24363 of 2019 dated 09.09.2021.

¶17

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.G.Saravanakumar

¶20

_______Page 1/9

¶21

Cont. Petn. No.217 of 2022

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner has come forward with this Contempt Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the order of this court dated 19.09.2021 passed in W.P. No.24363 of 2019.

¶24

Today, when the contempt petition was taken up for hearing, both the

¶25

learned counsel have submitted that the order of this court dated 19.09.2021 has got merged with the judgment of this court dated 21.03.2022 passed in W.A. No.612 of 2022. Applying the principle of Doctrine of Merger, the writ petitioner can file contempt proceedings against the order made in W.A.No.612 of 2022, if so advised, before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and the Single Judge who has passed the order cannot deal with the Contempt Petition initiated by the petitioner.

¶26

At this juncture, it would be worth referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kunhayammed & Others -vs- State of Kerala & Another, (2000 (6) SCC 359), wherein, the principle of Doctrine of Merger has been widely discussed. Relevant portion of the said decision is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶27

“32. It may be that in spite of having granted leave to appeal, the Court may dismiss the appeal on such grounds as may have provided foundation for refusing the grant at

¶28

_______Page 2/9

¶29

Cont. Petn. No.217 of 2022

¶30

the earlier stage. But that will be a dismissal of appeal. The decision of this Court would result in superseding the decision under appeal attracting doctrine of merger. But if the same reasons had prevailed with this Court for refusing leave to appeal, the order would not have been an appellate order but only an order refusing to grant leave to appeal.

¶31

41. Once a special leave petition has been granted, the doors for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court have been let open. The order impugned before the Supreme Court becomes an order appealed against. Any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and would attract the applicability of doctrine of merger. It would not make a difference whether the order is one of reversal or of modification or of dismissal affirming the order appealed against. It would also not make any difference if the order is a speaking or non- speaking one. Whenever this Court has felt inclined to apply its mind to the merits of the order put in issue before it though it may be inclined to affirm the same, it is customary with this Court to grant leave to appeal and thereafter dismiss the appeal itself (and not merely the petition for special leave) though at times the orders granting leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal are contained in the same order and at times the orders are quite brief. Nevertheless, the order shows the exercise of appellate jurisdiction and therein the merits of the order impugned having been subjected to judicial scrutiny of this Court.

¶32

_______Page 3/9

¶33

Cont. Petn. No.217 of 2022

¶34

42. To merge means to sink or disappear in something else; to become absorbed or extinguished; to be combined or be swallowed up. Merger in law is defined as the absorption of a thing of lesser importance by a greater, whereby the lesser ceases to exist, but the greater is not increased; an absorption or swallowing up so as to involve a loss of identity and individuality. (See Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. LVII, pp. 1067-1068) We may look at the issue from another angle. The Supreme Court cannot and does not reverse or modify the decree or order appealed against while deciding a petition for special leave to appeal. What is impugned before the Supreme Court can be reversed or modified only after granting leave to appeal and then assuming appellate jurisdiction over it. If the order impugned before the Supeme Court cannot be reversed or modified at the SLP stage obviously that order cannot also be affirmed at the SLP stage.

¶35

44. To sum up, our conclusions are:

¶36

(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law.

¶37

_______Page 4/9

¶38

Cont. Petn. No.217 of 2022

¶39

(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal.

¶40

(iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter.

¶41

(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.

¶42

_______Page 5/9

¶43

Cont. Petn. No.217 of 2022

¶44

(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties.

¶45

(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.

¶46

(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC.”

¶47

_______Page 6/9

¶48

Cont. Petn. No.217 of 2022

¶49

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a Single Judge

¶50

is entitled to proceed with a Contempt Petition. To substantiate his case, he has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dineshan, K.K. vs. R.K.Singh and another, [(2014) 16 SCC 88], wherein, it is held as under:

¶51

“9. We have carefully perused the decision of this Court. A reading of the judgment would certainly indicate that when the civil appeals and the special leave petitions are dismissed with reasons, the orders passed by the courts below would merge with the judgment and order passed by this Court. The said decision has been followed by this Court in a catena of subsequent judgments of this Court.

¶52

10. In view of what has been said by this Court in the aforesaid decision, we cannot hold that the judgment and order passed by the High Court has not merged with the judgment and order passed by this Court when the civil appeal filed by the petitioner complainant was dismissed.

¶53

_______Page 7/9

¶54

Cont. Petn. No.217 of 2022

¶55

12. We requested Shri K.K. Venugopal and Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel to assist us in the matter. Their view on the second question is that undoubtedly the order passed by this Court, while accepting the judgment and order passed by the courts below, would merge with the judgment and order passed by the courts below. ...”

¶56

With reference to the three-Judge ruling in Kunhayammed case, a

¶57

two-Judge Bench in the above case of K.K.Dineshan, in exercise of the powers under Articles 129, 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, has directed the complainant therein to approach the High Court. But, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioner in view of the finding of the Apex Court in paragraph 14 of K.K. Dineshan's case , which would read thus:

¶58

“14. We are mindful of settled law that the orders passed by the High Court would merge with the order passed by this Court. ...”

¶59

Once the order passed in a Writ Petition gets merged with the order

¶60

of the Writ Appeal, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a Contempt in

¶61

the Writ Appeal and not in the Writ Petition, unless and until the Apex Court specifically directs the High Court to decide the issue. The power of this court

¶62

_______Page 8/9

¶63

Cont. Petn. No.217 of 2022

¶64

under Article 215 of the Constitution of India can't be curtailed by the provision of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Thus, in view of the principle of

¶65

Doctrine of Merger discussed above, this Contempt Petition cannot be adjudicated and hence, it is closed.

¶66

SD/-

¶67

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)

¶68

asr

¶69

//Certified to be true copy//

¶70

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶71

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. BD/08/06/2022

¶72

_______Page 9/9

R.Bharanidharan v. K.Muthukaruppan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Bharanidharan v. K.Muthukaruppan

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

P.Gopi Vs B.Chitra

M.Subramanian Vs Mrs. Supriya Sahu, I.A.S.

Yogambal Vs Jyothi

Y.Mohana Vs K.Arumugam

S.Leela Vs Mr. K.M.Mohan Reddy

A.Rosalind Pushpa Vs Mr. K.M.Mohan Reddy