This single judge closed the contempt petition. The court accepted challans showing subsistence allowance payments were credited to the petitioner's account. Any remaining dispute on amounts withdrawn was directed to be resolved via a civil suit subject to limitation.
The contempt petition stands closed.
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.
Cont.P.No.619 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Cont.P.No.619 of 2023
Udayakumar
... Petitioner
Versus
1.Malarkannan Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hosur Circle, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
2.M.Nagaraj President, K.K. 127 House Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
... Respondents
Prayer : - This petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 13.12.2017 passed in W.P.No.32381 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Elumalai For R1 : Mr. S. Ravikumar, SGP For R2 : Mr. T. Sundaravadanan 1
Cont.P.No.619 of 2023
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to punish the respondents for the willful disobedience of the order dated 13.12.2017 in W.P.No.32381 of 2017.
2.W.P.No.32381 of 2017 had been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with a show cause notice dated 19.06.2017 and to set aside the same and reinstate the petitioner in service and pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner from 01.09.2016 to till date and all other attended benefits.
3.By an order dated 13.12.2017, a learned Single Judge of this Court
had stated that the petitioner had not been paid with the subsistence allowance from September – 2016 till the date of that particular order and it had been stated that the said subsistence allowance shall be paid in accordance with the rules. Complaining that the subsistence allowance had not been paid, the present contempt petition has been filed.
2
Cont.P.No.619 of 2023
4.On the side of the respondents, reliance was placed on the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, President, Credit Society Limited,
wherein, in the course of the proceedings, it had been observed as follows:
“ nkw;fz;l khz;g[kpF brd;id cah;ePjp kd;w Mizg;go. Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l jpU/ C /cjaFkhh; mth;fSf;F tH';fg;gl ntz;loa gpiHg;g{jpak; 04/12/2017 md;W tH';fg;gl;Ltpl;lJ ”
5.Further reliance is placed on the order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, wherein, it had been observed as follows:
“01.09.2016 Mk; njjp Kjy; 30/11/2017 Mk; njjp tiu gpiHg;g{jpak; 15 khj';fSf;F U:/304490-?.
04/12/2017 Mk; njjpapy; jpU/ C /cjaFkhh; nrkpg;g[f;
fzf;F vz;/2370 y; brYj;jg;gl;lJ/ nkw;go bjhif KGtJk; jpU/ C /cjaFkhh; bgw;Wf;
3
Cont.P.No.619 of 2023
bfhz;Ls;shh;/ nkYk;. 01/12/2017 Mk; njjp Kjy; ehsJ tiu mjhtJ 04/03/2018 Mk; njjp tiuapy; tH';fg;gl ntz;oa gpiHg;g{jpaj; bjhif U:/64084-? KGtJk; 04/03/2018 Mk; njjpapy; ,tuJ nrkpg;g[f; fzf;F vz;/2370 y; brYj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go cah;ePjp kd;wj; jPh;g[iuapy; bjhptpj;jgo tH';fg;gl ntz;oa gpiHg;g{jpak; KGtJk; tH';fg;gl;Ltpl;lJ vd;W bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ”
6.It had been stated that the petitioner had been paid with the entire amount. It had been stated that the amount of Rs.64,084/- is lying to the credit of the petitioner's account and if the petitioner presented a withdrawal slip, he can very well withdraw the same. During the course of the hearing, necessary challans for the said deposit of the aforesaid amounts had also been produced. It is also stated that the petitioner had also withdrawn a portion of the amount.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that a sum
4
Cont.P.No.619 of 2023
of Rs.1,00,000/- had been transferred to some other account by the respondents. There is no document produced to establish that particular fact. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though there are challans for deposit of the amount, the dates had been filled up by somebody, though the signatures are admitted. Thereafter, it had been stated that the statement of the bank account of the petitioner had been produced by the respondents and it is stated that a sum of Rs.49,000/- had been withdrawn and again deposited. But these relate to the account of the petitioner herein. Substantially, it had been stated that the amounts which are due and payable had been paid.
8.The contempt petition cannot be widened to be an examination of the facts once again. Limited examination as to the compliance of the order alone has to be examined and the documents produced by the petitioner himself shows that there has been deposit of aforementioned two sums namely a sum of Rs.3,04,490/- on 04.12.2017 being subsistence allowance for a period of 15 months from 01.09.2016 till 30.11.2017 and further sum
5
Cont.P.No.619 of 2023
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. smv
of Rs.64,084/- being subsistence allowance from 01.12.2017 till 04.03.2018. Both had been credited to the account of the petitioner herein. If the petitioner still has any grievance, then subject to the law of limitation, the petitioner can always file a civil suit. Accordingly, this contempt petition stands closed.
11.09.2023
smv Neutral Citiation : Yes / No Index : Yes / No
Cont.P.No.619 of 2023
6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition for willful disobedience of a subsistence allowance order should be closed in view of production of challans.
Udayakumar
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hosur Circle, Hosur, Krishnagiri District
President, K.K. 127 House Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Hosur, Krishnagiri District
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
