Dismissed

A.Abdul Kadar v. Thiru. Pradeep Yadav I.A.S

Madras HC24 Nov 2023CONT P/580/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

contempt petition Filed against defiance of writ orders dismissed As a writ Appeal and interim stay had been filed by the respondent Before the division bench The single judge court held it was not appropriate to parallelly adjudicate the petition and closed the contempt proceeding granting liberty to seek remedy subject to the appeal outcome.

What did the court decide?

contempt petition closed with liberty to work out remedy subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal

A.Abdul Kadar Vs Thiru. Pradeep Yadav I.A.S — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Cont.P.No.580 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Cont.P.No.580 of 2023

¶7

1.A.Abdul Kder

¶8

2.P.Ravi

¶9

3.J.Rajappan

¶10

4.S.Sekar

¶11

5.M.Soundarrajan

¶12

6.M.Sivalingam

¶13

7.M.Gandhi

¶14

8.C.Periyannan

¶15

9.R.Pandian

¶16

10.M.Ponnusamy

¶17

11.S.Sivalingam ... Petitioners Vs.

¶18

1.Thiru.Pradeep Yadav I.A.S., The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶19

Thiru.B.R.Kumar

¶20

The Chief Engineer (General), Highways Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 Now re-designated as Director General

¶21

1/4

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Cont.P.No.580 of 2023

¶24

Having Office at Integrated Chief Engineers Office HRS Campus, 76 Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 025.

¶25

Thiru.Saravanan The Divisional Engineer, Highways Division, Nagapattinam ... Respondents

¶26

Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to punish the respondent for his wilful disobedience and disrespect to the orders of this Court dated 30.09.2022 made in WP.No.11231 of 2012.

¶27

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Rengaramanujam For Respondents : Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Spl.Govt. Pleader

¶28

ORDER

¶29

It is stated by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent sthat as against the order of the Writ Court, they have preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1090 of 2023, and interim stay has been granted by the Hon'ble Division Bench.

¶30

While that being so, it would not be appropriate for this Court to

¶31

2/4

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Cont.P.No.580 of 2023

¶34

parallely adjudicate the contempt petition when the Hon'ble Division Bench has seized of the matter. However, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner to

¶35

work out his remedy subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal.

¶36

With the above liberty, the Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶37

Consequently, sub application is closed.

24.11.2023

Index: Yes/No sr

3/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Cont.P.No.580 of 2023

¶43

M.S.RAMESH,J.

¶44

¶45

Cont.P.No.580 of 2023

¶46

24.11.2023

¶47

4/4

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.Abdul Kadar v. Thiru. Pradeep Yadav I.A.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Abdul Kadar v. Thiru. Pradeep Yadav I.A.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Arivoli Vs The Principal secretary

A.Pichaiammal Vs The Managing Director

M.Bagiyalakshmi Vs The Principal Accountant General(a and E)

K.Periyasami and another Vs R.Sudha

M.Gnanasekaran Vs Thiru.Pradeep Yadav IAS

S.Vasuki Vs The Director (Mr. T. Anand I.a.S.)