Dismissed¶25

Abbas Mandhiri v. Marudhapandi

Madras HC5 Jun 2025CONT P(MD)/388/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of Courts Act Section 10; wilful disobedience of writ order dated 07.11.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.18777 of 2023; encroachment removal direction; Tahsildar Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District; Executive Officer Town Panchayat Devadhanapatti; survey conducted and encroachments identified; contempt petition not maintainable where writ order did not adjudicate on merits; liberty to seek appropriate relief; contempt petition dismissed; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; S.M. Subramaniam J. and Dr. A.D. Maria Clete J.; dated 05.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Unless there is a wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court, no contempt proceedings need to be initiated. ¶24

Abbas Mandhiri Vs Marudhapandi — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Cont.P(MD)No.388 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

Cont.P(MD)No.388 of 2025 in W.P.(MD) No.18777 of 2023

¶7

Abbas Mandhiri ... Petitioner Vs

¶8

Marudhapandi, The Tahsildar, Periyakulam Taluk Office, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶9

Vijaya, The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat Office, Devadhanapatti, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the contemnors for willful disobedience of order dated 07.11.2023 passed in W.P.(MD).No.18777 of 2023.

¶11

1/5

¶12

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

¶13

Cont.P(MD)No.388 of 2025

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vellaichamy, For R1 : Mr.Om Prakash Government Advocate

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

¶17

The contempt petition has been instituted to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, dated 07.11.2023 passed in W.P.(MD)No.18777 of 2023.

¶18

2.This Court has issued a direction based on the Government orders for removal of encroachments. However, at the time of passing of the order, no report was called for regarding the details of the encroachment from the competent authority. This Court has directed the authorities to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner and take action in accordance with law and by following the procedures.

¶19

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the survey was conducted and encroachments are identified.

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

Cont.P(MD)No.388 of 2025

¶23

4.If the statement is correct, the authorities ought to have initiated

¶24

action. As far as the contempt proceedings are concerned, unless there is a wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court, no proceedings needs to be initiated. That apart, this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief. That being so, the present contempt petition is not maintainable, since this Court has not adjudicated the issues on merits, but directed the authorities to look into the complaint and take a decision.

¶25

5.Thus, this contempt petition stands dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28