Disposed¶20

Amutha v. Radhakrishnan

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – S.11

Madras HC9 Jul 2025CONT P(MD)/1512/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amutha v. Radhakrishnan, Executive Officer, Special Grade Panchayat, Watrap, Virudhunagar District - Cont. P(MD)No.1512 of 2025 in W.P(MD)No.27661 of 2024, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, R.Vijayakumar J., 09.07.2025 - contempt petition under Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non-compliance with writ order dated 20.11.2024; terminal benefits released; grievance over lesser subsistence allowance; liberty reserved to challenge; petition closed without punishment.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order on subsistence allowance if aggrieved; contempt petition closed. ¶20

Amutha Vs Radhakrishnan — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Cont. P(MD)No.1512 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

Cont. P(MD)No.1512 of 2025 in W.P(MD)No.27661 of 2024

Amutha

... Petitioner

Vs.

Radhakrishnan, Executive Officer, Special Grade Panchayat, Watrap, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the contemnor for his deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of this Court made in W.P(MD)No.27661 of 2024, dated 20.11.2024 and pass such further or other orders as this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Maya Perumal For Respondent : M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

Cont. P(MD)No.1512 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging violation of the order of this Court, dated 20.11.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.27661 of 2024, wherein, this Court has directed the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶19

2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent herein pointed out that the terminal benefits of the petitioner have been calculated and have been released. However, it is the grievance of the writ petitioner that subsistence allowance has not been properly calculated and a lesser subsistence allowance has been paid. In case, if the petitioner is aggrieved over the order, she is always at liberty to challenge the same.

¶20

3. With the said observations, the contempt petition stands closed.

¶21

09.07.2025

¶22

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes BTR

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

Cont. P(MD)No.1512 of 2025