Disposed¶24

Susila and another v. S.Jagajothi

Madras HC7 Feb 2025CONT P/3811/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Contempt Petition No.3811 of 2024 (decided 07.02.2025, N. Anand Venkatesh, J.) — Susila and Rathinakumar v. S.Jagajothi — contempt under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging suppression of facts in W.P.No.26565 of 2023 (order dated 12.09.2023 on police protection) — held no positive direction was issued, police enquiry pending before District Collector, no contumacious conduct attributable — contempt petition closed.

What did the court decide?

This Court had not given any positive direction to any of the official respondents; it had merely directed the police to deal with the representations made by the writ petitioner seeking police protection. ¶23

Susila and another Vs S.Jagajothi — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Contempt Petition No.3811 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Contempt Petition No.3811 of 2024

¶7

1.Susila 2.Rathinakumar

... Petitioners

-Vs-

S.Jagajothi

... Respondent

Prayer : Contempt Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying to punish the respondents for deliberate and willful suppressing of the facts in W.P.No.26565 of 2023 order dated 12.09.2023.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.Lourdu Savio For Respondent : Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan Additional Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Contempt Petition has been filed by the respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition on the ground that the relevant facts were not brought to the notice of this

¶16

Court by the respondents and as a result, this Court had passed an order on 12.09.2023 directing the police to consider granting police protection.

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Contempt Petition No.3811 of 2024

¶20

KST

¶21

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶22

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents submitted that the parties were only called for enquiry before the District Collector and till date no decision has been taken regarding providing police protection and therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance and cannot maintain the contempt petition.

¶23

In the considered opinion of this Court, this Court has not given any positive direction to any of the official respondents. This Court had merely directed the police to deal with the representations made by the writ petitioner seeking for police protection. It now comes to light that the police has not taken any decision on providing police protection and the enquiry is pending before the District Collector.

¶24