Disposed

Selvaraj, v. Arul Jeyapaul

Madras HC27 Apr 2026CONT P(MD)/1375/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition under Section 10, the petitioner alleged non-compliance of an earlier order directing police to inquire into a lost sale deed matter. The court found the petitioner failed to appear despite summons. The court directed the petitioner to appear for the inquiry and ordered the police to decide as per DGP guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear on 28.04.2026; respondent police directed to conduct enquiry and issue decision as per DGP guidelines.

Selvaraj, Vs Arul Jeyapaul — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CONT.P.(MD)No.1375 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.04.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CONT.P.(MD)No.1375 of 2026 in WP(MD) No.18343 of 2024

¶7

Selvaraj ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Mr.Arul Jeyapaul, Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli City. ...Contemnor/Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying this Court, to punish the Contemnor/Respondent for his willful disobedience of the order made in WP(MD) No.18343 of 2024, dated 02.08.2024 on the file of this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

CONT.P.(MD)No.1375 of 2026

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner with a grievance that the order of this Court in WP(MD) No.18343 of 2024, dated 02.08.2024 has not been complied with, has approached this Court.

¶17

2.The petitioner, who has lost his original sale deed has filed a writ petition in WP(MD) No.18343 of 2024, for a Mandamus to the respondent police to issue a non-traceable certificate. This Court, by its order, dated 02.08.2024, has directed the respondent police to ascertain the genuineness of the complaint of this petitioner and take a decision as per the guidelines issued by the Director General of Police, in his Circular Memorandum in RC No. 2029209/General.1(1)/2022, dated 01.04.2022. The petitioner has now approached this Court that the respondent police has not complied with the above order.

¶18

2/6

¶19

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

¶20

CONT.P.(MD)No.1375 of 2026

¶21

3.Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), who takes notice for the respondent submits that this petitioner has not appeared before the respondent police, despite their summons, dated 12.04.2026 & 25.04.2026. Without the co-operation of the petitioner, they are not in a position to take a decision as per the guidelines issued by the Director General of Police in RC No.2029209/General.1(1)/2022, dated 01.04.2022.

¶22

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and

¶23

also perused the materials placed on record.

¶24

5.The petitioner has approached this Court to direct the respondent police to issue a Non-Traceable Certificate that he has lost his original sale deed. This Court, by its order, dated 02.08.2024, has directed the respondent police to take a decision as per the guidelines issued by the Director General of Police, in his Circular Memorandum in RC No.2029209/General.1(1)/2022, dated 01.04.2022. It is reported that the respondent police has issued

¶25

3/6

¶26

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

¶27

CONT.P.(MD)No.1375 of 2026

¶28

summons twice to the petitioner, however, he did not appear before them. Instead he has filed this contempt petition that the order of this Court has not been complied with by the respondent police.

¶29

6.In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police on 28.04.2026 at 10.30 a.m., The respondent police shall conduct an enquiry and take a decision as per the aforementioned circular, without any further delay.

¶30

7.With the above directions, this contempt petition is

closed.

27.04.2026

Index:Yes/No vrn

4/6

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

¶36

CONT.P.(MD)No.1375 of 2026

¶37

¶38

Mr.Tirumurugan, Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thoothukudi - 628 008.

¶39

5/6

¶40

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

¶41

CONT.P.(MD)No.1375 of 2026

¶42

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶43

vrn

¶44

Order made in CONT.P.(MD)No.1375 of 2026 in WP(MD) No.18343 of 2024

¶45

27.04.2026

¶46

6/6

¶47

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

Selvaraj, v. Arul Jeyapaul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvaraj, v. Arul Jeyapaul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Prakash Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Swamimalai

R.Narayanan Vs Pankaj Kumar Bansal I.A.S.

Baby Leela Bai Vs E.Natarajan

Johnson Vs The Superintendent, CBI

Saranpandiyan Vs The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Jose Mariyaragul Vs The State of Tamilnadu