T.Muthusamy, Vs Thirumathi. P.Malarvizhi

Thirumathi.P.Malarvizhi Special Officer/Block Development Officer A.Eraiyamangalam Village Panchayat A.Eraiyamangalam Post Thiruchengode Taluk Namakkal District -637 210

¶13

.. Respondent

¶14

Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent herein for their willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court in Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2430 of 2025 dated 01.08.2025.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Nethaji For Respondent : Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate

¶16

1

¶17

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

¶18

Cont.P.No.4024 of 2025

¶19

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)

¶20

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondent herein

¶21

for their willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court in Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2430 of 2025 dated 01.08.2025.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite this Court had given a clear direction by order dated 01.08.2025 to the respondent herein/6^th respondent therein to take action in respect of removal of the piggery farms of the respondents 8 and 9 therein within a period of eight weeks, the respondent herein has not taken any effective steps to comply with the said order.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the order of this Court was already complied with and the respondent has already passed an order dated 22.10.2025. He further submitted that subsequent to the order passed in W.A.No.2430 of 2025 dated 01.08.2025, the petitioner had approached a Single Bench of this Court by way of filing a Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.2108 of 2025 alleging willful disobedience of the original order dated 07.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.7989

¶24

2

¶25

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

¶26

Cont.P.No.4024 of 2025 of 2025. The learned Single Judge, closed the said Contempt Petition by order dated 24.10.2025 by considering the modification passed in W.A.No.2430 of 2025 dated 01.08.2025 and the order passed by the respondent herein dated 22.10.2025, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum if he was so aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent. Suppressing the same, the petitioner has once again filed the present Contempt Petition.

¶27

A perusal of records shows that this Court by order dated 01.08.2025 in W.A.No.2430 of 2025 modified the direction given in paragraph No.7 of the order in W.P.No.7989 of 2025 dated 07.03.2025 as follows:

¶28

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Paragraph No.7 is substituted to read as under:

¶29

“7. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court directs the sixth respondent to give due notice to the petitioner as well as respondents 8 & 9, afford an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, take suitable action in respect of removal of the piggery farms of the respondents

¶30

3

¶31

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

¶32

Cont.P.No.4024 of 2025

¶33

8 & 9 situated in S.No.188/1 at A.Erayamangalam Village, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶34

Pursuant to the above order, the respondent has issued notice to the respondents therein and conducted enquiry and passed order on 22.10.2025. The petitioner has also participated in the said enquiry. The petitioner, instead of challenging the said order, approached a Single Bench of this Court by way of filing Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.2108 of 2025. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 24.10.2025, closed the Contempt Petition stating that the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.2430 of 2025 dated 01.08.2025 was duly complied with by the respondent and also gave liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum. The petitioner, instead of challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 22.10.2025, once again has filed the present Contempt Petition. Or, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, he ought to have filed a Contempt Appeal and not Contempt Petition.

¶35