The High Court of Judicature at Madras held that a contempt petition filed to punish government officials for disobeying an earlier dismissed writ petition is misconceived and implicitly closed the petition.
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.631 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.04.2023
CORAM :
The HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Cont.P.No.631 of 2023
R.Sivakumar
.. Petitioner
vs
.. Respondents
Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for their wilful and intentional disobedience of the order passed in W.P.No.30561 of 2008 etc dated 29.09.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar Special Government Pleader
1/3
Cont.P.No.631 of 2023
ORDER
This contempt petition is mis-conceived seeing as it has been filed in respect of W.P.No.30561 of 2008. That writ petition sought issuance of a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Deputy Collector without reference to punishment imposed in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/71919/2022 dated 23.03.2006.
10.04.2023
Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssm
2/3
Cont.P.No.631 of 2023
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
ssm
Cont.P.No. 631 of 2023
10.04.2023
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a contempt petition is maintainable against an order in an earlier withdrawn writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Sivakumar
Thiru.Kumar Jayant, IAS
Thiru.S.Nagarajan, IAS
Dr.M.Aarthi, IAS
DR ANITA SUMANTH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
