Contempt petition alleging two-month delay by the District Educational Officer in complying with a writ direction to decide the school's proposal. The court noted the order had been complied with, took a lenient view of the delay, and closed the contempt petition.
Contempt petition closed; no punishment imposed as compliance was already effected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cont.P(MD)No.795 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
Cont.P.(MD)No.795 of 2025 in W.P.(MD)No.18064 of 2024
The Correspondent, CMSES David Memorial Higher Secondary School, Karisal Post, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District – 627 414 ... Petitioner / Petitioner
Vs.
Saisubbulakshmi
The District Educational Officer (Secondary School) Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. ... Contemnor/Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the Contemnor/respondent herein for her deliberate and willful disobedience of the Order of this Court dated 31.07.2024 in Writ Petition (MD) No. 18064 of 2024.
For Petitioner : M/s. Roosi Maas
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
1
O R D E R
Cont.P(MD)No.795 of 2025
This Contempt Petition has been filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of the respondent in implementing the order dated 09.07.2024 in W.P(MD)No.18064 of 2024 in true letter and spirit.
2. While disposing the said writ petition, this Court directed the fourth respondent to consider the proposal sent by the petitioner school dated 15.02.2023 on merits and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
3. Mr.Amjad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the order of the court is complied with and the proposal of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 07.03.2025. Accordingly, he submits that the order of the court is complied with.
4. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for the petitioner contends
that there is a delay in implementing the order of the court. As such, it is not compliance in true letter and spirty.
2
Cont.P(MD)No.795 of 2025
5. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and
considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that there is a delay of two months in passing the orders by the respondents as directed by this Court in its order.
6. Considering the fact that there is delay of two months, this Court intends to take a lenient view in view of the fact that already the order of the court is complied with.
7. In view of the same, in our considered view, no further order is required in this contempt petition.
8. Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed.
08.04.2025
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No CM
3
Cont.P(MD)No.795 of 2025
To,
Saisubbulakshmi
The District Educational Officer (Secondary School) Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
4
Cont.P(MD)No.795 of 2025
BATTU DEVANAND, J.,
CM
Cont.P.(MD)No.795 of 2025 in W.P.(MD)No.18064 of 2024
08.04.2025
5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents' compliance with the writ direction, delayed by two months in rejecting the school's proposal, amounted to willful disobedience warranting punishment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Correspondent, CMSES David Memorial Higher Secondary School
Saisubbulakshmi, The District Educational Officer (Secondary School) Tirunelveli
Battu Devanand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
