The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging TANGEDCO's rejection of an application to initiate criminal contempt proceedings. The Court held that mere non-implementation of orders does not constitute criminal contempt and found no merit in the petitioner's case.
The writ petition was dismissed and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.23642 of 2018
C.Sellamuthu
...Petitioner
Vs.
3.Manivanan, The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Salem. ...Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent herein in his proceedings in contempt petition No.5 of 2018 dated 22.03.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondent to give consent to the petitioner to file the criminal contempt against the TANGEDCO before this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan For R1 : Mr.R.ShunmugaSundaram Advocate General assisted by Ms.Shakeenaa, Government Advocate & Mr.Vedha Bhagath Singh, Special Government Pleader
For R2 & R2 : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan
O R D E R
I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned Advocate General in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, whereby, he has sought for consent to initiate contempt proceedings.
2.The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that though several orders have been passed by the Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has not chosen to implement such orders.
3.The definition of the terms Criminal Contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, would relate to matters of scandalising or lowering or tending or tend to lower the authority of Court or interference to any judicial proceeding or administration of justice. Disobedience of Courts orders cannot be termed as Criminal Contempt when the definition is strictly applied.
4.The Advocate General has also relied upon the ingredients of the Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and thereby, rejected the petitioner's application as not maintainable.
5.The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also has no relevance since as rightly pointed out by the Advocate General. The decision reported in (2008) 1 SCC 560 - Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others relates to repeated suppression of facts before the Court and the other judgment reported in (1991) 1 SCC 619- Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union Vs. Union of India and Others relates to filing of repeated writ petitions by petitioners therein.
6.As such there are no merits in the present writ petition, this Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Dua
To
W.P.No.23642 of 2018
RK (CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PR (11/02/2022)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to consents under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against TANGEDCO.
Whether non-implementation of previous High Court orders constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersReferred¶20
(2008) 1 SCC 560 - Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others · Who else cites this
Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union Vs. Union of India and OthersReferred¶20
(1991) 1 SCC 619- Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union Vs. Union of India and Others · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
C. Sellamuthu
The Advocate General of Tamilnadu, High Court, Chennai
Vikram Kapoor
Manivanan
M.S. RAMESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
