Dismissed¶¶42

Mr. S.Selvakumar, v. Thiru. Pavankumar G Giriyappanavar, Ias.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 11

Madras HC3 Nov 2025CONT P/3310/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court contempt petition (CONT P No. 3310 of 2025, decided 03-11-2025, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.) under Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging willful disobedience of writ order in W.P.No.12795 of 2025 dated 08.04.2025; compliance found via Collector's order dated 01.07.2025; Tahsildhar's remand order dated 16.10.2025 not examinable in contempt; pendency of O.S.No.545 of 2025, District Munsif Court, Pollachi noted; petition closed, no costs, liberty to approach Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

No punishment for contempt; contempt petition closed with no costs, liberty kept open to the petitioner to take steps known to law or appropriate steps before the Civil Court against the Tahsildhar's order dated 16.10.2025. ¶¶42

Mr. S.Selvakumar, Vs Thiru. Pavankumar G Giriyappanavar, Ias. — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondent (District Collector, Coimbatore) willfully disobeyed the order of this Court in W.P.No. 12795 of 2025 dated 08.04.2025 so as to be punished for contempt under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. +1 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

The Collector took up the appeal for enquiry, heard both sides and passed an order on 01.07.2025; therefore the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.12795 of 2025 have been complied with.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

This Court cannot, in the contempt petition, enlarge the scope of the writ order, since the order passed in the writ petition has been complied with by the Collector; grievances against the Tahsildhar's order dated 16.10.2025 cannot be entertained in this contempt proceeding.

¶¶41

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildhar, it is open to him to take steps in the manner known to law or appropriate steps before the Civil Court; with this liberty kept open, the contempt petition stands closed with no costs.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 11 — alleged willful disobedience of order dated 08.04.2025 in W.P.No.12795 of 2025 directing the District Collector, Coimbatore to take up the petitioner's appeal dated 19.11.2024, hear him and pass orders within twelve weeks — Held: the Collector took up the appeal, heard both sides and passed an order on 01.07.2025, so the writ directions stood complied with; a contempt petition cannot be used to enlarge the scope of the writ order nor to attack the subsequent Tahsildhar's order dated 16.10.2025 (passed after noting pendency of O.S.No.545 of 2025 before the District Munsif Court, Pollachi) — contempt petition closed, no costs, liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue remedies known to law or before the Civil Court.

¶1

CONT P No. 3310 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CONT P No. 3310 of 2025

Mr. S.Selvakumar,

..Petitioner(s)

Thiru. Pavankumar G Giriyappanavar, IAS., The District Collector, Collector Office, Coimbatore 641 018.

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the Respondent for willfully disobeying the order of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.No. 12795 of 2025 dated 08.04.2025

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr. S.Nagarajan

¶13

For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Manoharan, Additional Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This contempt petition has been filed complaining willful disobedience

¶16

of the Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12795 of 2025 dated 08.04.2025.

¶17

By the said order, this Court directed the District Collector, Coimbatore District to take up the appeal filed by the petitioner dated

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

CONT P No. 3310 of 2025

¶21

19.11.2024. It was also further directed that the petitioner shall also be heard in

¶22

the matter and orders be passed in accordance with law within a period of

¶23

twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of that order.

¶24

When the matter came up for hearing, Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the order has since been complied with and would produce two orders dated 01.07.2025 and 16.10.2025.

¶25

Mr.S.Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though the appeal was disposed of by the Collector directing the Tahsildhar to conduct an enquiry by giving notice to both the sides, the Tahsildhar after remand did not give any notice whatsoever and straight away passed an order on 16.10.2025.

¶26

In reply thereof, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that, when the matter was taken up for hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Tahsildhar that the matter is pending before learned District Munsif Court, Pollachi in O.S.No.545 of 2025. Therefore, recording the same the entire proceedings are closed. As a matter of fact, the Collector has disposed the same only after hearing both the sides.

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

CONT P No. 3310 of 2025

¶30

I have considered the rival submissions made on the either side and

¶31

perused the material records of the case.

¶32

As per the orders of this Court, the Collector has taken up the appeal

¶33

for enquiry, heard both sides and thereafter passed an order on 01.07.2025. As such, the directions given by this Court in the above Writ petition has been complied with.

¶34

By the said order, the Collector has issued further directions to the Tahsildhar. The Tahsildhar has also passed an order on 16.10.2025.

¶35

According to the learned counsel for the contempt petitioner this order

¶36

dated 16.10.2025 is not as per the directions issued by the Collector. He would submit that after the directions were issued by the Collector, the contempt petitioner was not heard.

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

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

¶39

CONT P No. 3310 of 2025

¶40

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶41

This Court cannot in the contempt petition enlarge the scope, as the order passed in the Writ petition has been complied with by the Collector. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildhar, it would be open for him to take such steps in the manner known to law or to take appropriate steps before the Civil Court.

¶42

With the said liberty kept open, this contempt petition stands closed. No costs.

¶43

03-11-2025

¶44

Index: No Speaking order Neutral Citation: No

¶45

mpl

¶46

CONT P No. 3310 of 2025

¶47

__________ Page 4 of 4

¶48

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 12795 of 2025 dated 08.04.2025, alleged to have been willfully disobeyed by the Respondent (District Collector, Coimbatore), which is the subject of the contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.¶¶11
High Court of Judicature at Madras · 08.04.2025
Prior proceeding
By order dated 08.04.2025 in W.P.No.12795 of 2025, this Court directed the District Collector, Coimbatore District to take up the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 19.11.2024.¶¶17
Prior proceeding
The writ order further directed that the petitioner be heard and orders be passed in accordance with law within twelve weeks from receipt of the web copy of the order.¶¶22-23
Prior proceeding
When the contempt petition came up, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the writ order had been complied with and produced two orders dated 01.07.2025 and 16.10.2025.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
The Court recorded that the Collector took up the appeal for enquiry, heard both sides and passed an order on 01.07.2025, thereby complying with the writ directions; by that order the Collector issued further directions to the Tahsildhar, who passed an order on 16.10.2025.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
By the Collector's order, further directions were issued to the Tahsildhar, who also passed an order on 16.10.2025.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's counsel submitted that, contrary to the Collector's direction for enquiry with notice to both sides, the Tahsildhar after remand gave no notice whatsoever and straight away passed the order dated 16.10.2025.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Respondent's reply: when the matter was taken up, it was brought to the Tahsildhar's notice that the matter is pending before the learned District Munsif Court, Pollachi in O.S.No.545 of 2025; recording the same, the entire proceedings were closed, and the Collector disposed of the matter only after hearing both sides.¶¶26

Mr. S.Selvakumar, v. Thiru. Pavankumar G Giriyappanavar, Ias.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. S.Selvakumar, v. Thiru. Pavankumar G Giriyappanavar, Ias.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrasekaran Vs State, Rep. by

Elango Vs State Rep. by Its

Pazhani Vs the State Rep. by

S.Rajamani Vs R.Kumar @ Sivakumar

D.Anjaneyulu Vs Dr.B.Chandra Mohan, IAS and 5 others

Centwin Housing Private Limited Vs Abin Dinesh Modak, IPS and Another