Disposed¶31

Shanmugam v. M.S.Prashanth, IAS and Another

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, S.11 – Wilful disobedience

Madras HC15 Dec 2025CONT P/3067/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Cont.P.No.3067 of 2025, decided 15.12.2025 (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ and G.Arul Murugan, J; order by Chief Justice). Contempt petition under Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act 1971 alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 08.04.2024 in W.P.No.25075 of 2022 (undertaking to enquire into malpractice in MGNREGA/PMAY/Indira Awas Yojna schemes and village panchayat works). Court found compliance sufficient — enquiry reports of 22.04.2024 and 24.05.2024, recovery orders, suspensions and departmental action — and closed the contempt petition without punishment. No precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

No punishment imposed; the contempt petition was closed. ¶31

Shanmugam Vs M.S.Prashanth, IAS and Another — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Cont.P.No.3067 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.12.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

Cont.P.No.3067 of 2025

Shanmugam

.. Petitioner

Vs.

M.S.Prashanth, I.A.S., District Collector Kallakurichi – 606202 Kallakurichi District.

¶12

K.Jaganathan Block Development Officer Rishivanthiyam Panchayat Union Rishivanthiyam – 605801 Kallakurichi District.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 08.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.25075 of 2022.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Palani Kumar

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.Suresh Kumar Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate

¶17

___________ Page 1 of 4_

¶18

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

¶19

Cont.P.No.3067 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶22

Petitioner alleges wilful disobedience of the order dated

¶23

08.04.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25075 of 2022.

¶24

The operative portion of the order, of which disobedience is alleged, records as below:

¶25

”3. In paragraph 3 of the said status report, it is stated that the District Panchayat Secretary, Kallakurichi is appointed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner of malpractice in various schemes like The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act Scheme, The Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Scheme, The Indira Awas Yojna Scheme and the village panchayat works. Enquiry is in progress and the same would be completed within a period of fifteen days. Once the enquiry is completed and if the allegations are proved, necessary action would be initiated against the concerned officials.

¶26

4. We accept the said status report as an undertaking to the Court. In view of that, the present writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶27

___________ Page 2 of 4_

¶28

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

¶29

Cont.P.No.3067 of 2025

¶30

From the reply affidavit of second respondent, it is revealed that enquiry report was submitted on 22.04.2024. However, as the enquiry was not found to be complete, pursuant to further directions, a detailed enquiry report was submitted on 24.05.2024 and acting upon the said report, recovery orders have been issued and those who were found to be prima facie involved in the alleged irregularity have been suspended and departmental action initiated.

¶31

We are of the view that nothing more than what has been done was required to be done in the spirit of the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the contempt petition is closed.

¶32

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 15.12.2025

¶33

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶34

kpl

¶35

___________ Page 3 of 4_

¶36

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

¶37

Cont.P.No.3067 of 2025