J.Magimainathan, Vs R.Gayathri and 2 others — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

J.Magimainathan, Vs R.Gayathri and 2 others — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No punishment imposed for contempt; the contempt petition stands closed upon noting the RDO's compliance (proceedings dated 12.12.2025). The petitioner remains free to question the RDO's order in the manner known to law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri) wilfully disobeyed the order dated 15.04.2025 in WP No.11889 of 2025 so as to warrant punishment under the contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. +1 more

Court's answer

The compliance affidavit of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, along with her proceedings dated 12.12.2025, was placed before the Court when the matter was taken up, recording implementation of the order dated 15.04.2025 in WP No.11889 of 2025; on this basis the contempt petition was closed without imposition of any sanction.

Ratio / Principle

In the considered view of this Court, the Court will not go into the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the RDO, Dharmapuri in purported compliance; that question falls outside the contempt jurisdiction in this proceeding.

Key takeaways

Any grievance of the petitioner against the RDO's order is left open to be questioned by him in the manner known to law.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition No.4167 of 2025 (Madras High Court, N. Anand Venkatesh J., 23.01.2026) filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by J. Magimainathan seeking punishment of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri for alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 15.04.2025 in WP No.11889 of 2025. When taken up, the RDO's compliance affidavit with proceedings Ne.Mu.No.2698/2025/A3 dated 12.12.2025 was placed on record: pursuant to the writ order an inquiry was held (notice dated 18.09.2025, Na.Ka.No.2698/2025/A3), the writ petitioner participated, the 3rd writ respondent stayed away, and on the petitioner's submissions and the revenue inspector's report the RDO dismissed the petitioner's plea, directed him to the appropriate civil forum and advised appeal to the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri. The Court declined to enter into the legality or otherwise of the RDO's order, left the petitioner's grievance open to be pursued as known to law, and closed the contempt petition. No contempt was punished; the legality of the compliance order was expressly left unexamined. Respondents 2 and 3 (Manoharan and Sanmugam) had been deleted as unnecessary parties by court order dated 12.12.2025.

Cont.P.No.4167 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 23.01.2026

Coram :

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH

Contempt Petition No.4167 of 2025

J.Magimainathan ...Petitioner

Vs

R.Gayathri Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District,

2. Manoharan

Sanmugam [Respondents 2 ad 3 are unnecessary parties and hence, deleted the names of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as per the order of this Court made in Cont P No.4167 of 2025 dated 12.12.2025] ...Respondent

PETITION under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondent herein for wilful disobedience of the order dated 15.04.2025 in WP No.11889 of

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kavin Kumar For Respondent : Mr.T.K.Saravanan

1/4

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

Cont.P.No.4167 of 2025

Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This Contempt petition has been filed for the wilful

disobedience of the order dated 15.04.2025 in WP No.11889 of 2025.

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the compliance affidavit of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri along with the proceedings dated 12.12.2025 were placed before this Court. The relevant portion in the compliance report is extracted hereunder:-

4.1 respectfully submit that pursuant to the orders of this Hon’ble High court dated 15.04.2025, this respondent issued notice of inquiry to the petitioner, the 3 rd Respondent in the Writ Petition vide letter dated 18.09.2025 in Na.Ka.No.2698/2025/A3, 1 state that the petitioner participated in the enquiry and gave his oral submission, the 3rd Respondent after receiving enquiry notice, not appeared before this Respondent, I further state that the revenue inspector has also filed his report. Based on the submission of the petitioner and revenue inspector, this Respondent passes a Proceedings in Ne.Mu.No.2698/2025/A3 dated 12.12.2025, by dismissing the

2/4

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

Cont.P.No.4167 of 2025 plea of the Petitioner and further directed the writ petitioner to approach appropriate civil forum and also further informed the petitioner that if he is aggrieved by the present order, direction was given to him to prefer an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri.

The learned counsel for the petitioner had a grievance

regarding the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the final orders were passed.

In the considered view of this Court, this Court will not go into the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the RDO, Dharmapuri. If the petitioner has any grievance, it is left open to the petitioner to question the same in the manner known to law. Accordingly, this contempt petition stands closed.

23.01.2026

Index : Yes (or) No Neutral Citation : Yes (or) No Speaking Order : Yes (or) No

rka

3/4

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

Cont.P.No.4167 of 2025 N.ANAND VENKATESH,J

rka

Contempt Petition No.4167 of 2025

23.01.2026

4/4

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