N. Prabukumar Vs A.K. Mehbub Alikhan

Prayer:- Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, praying to punish the contemnor / respondent herein for committing grave contempt and gross disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD)No.24910 of 2022, dated 03.01.2025.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Boopathipandiyan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff Standing Counsel

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Contempt Petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.24910 of 2022, dated 03.01.2025.

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶15

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

¶16

2

¶17

Cont.P.(MD)No.197 of 2026

¶18

2 . The grievance of the petitioner is that he had pledged his jewels with M/s.Selvi Gold Finance Private Limited, Ramanathapuram District, which was arrayed as the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition. The said Company was subsequently closed. By order dated 29.10.2018 in W.P.(MD)No.12654 of 2018, a Committee consisting of the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(MD)No.24910 of 2022, namely, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Ramanathapuram, the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, and the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram, was constituted to conduct an enquiry and facilitate redemption of the jewels. The tenure of the said Committee has also expired.

¶19

3 . It was the contention of the petitioner that the fourth respondent had, in turn, pledged the jewels with Karur Vysya Bank. Taking note of the fact that the Bank was not a party to the Writ Petition, this Court, while disposing of the said Writ Petition, directed the District Legal Services Authority, Ramanathapuram, to consider the petitioner's representation.

¶20

_____________ Page 2 of 5_

¶21

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

¶22

4

¶23

Cont.P.(MD)No.197 of 2026

¶24

4 . In an attempt to comply with the said direction, the Legal Services Authority issued notices to the concerned parties. However, it is reported that there has been no cooperation from the accused side, as they have neither received the notices nor appeared for the enquiry. Consequently, no final orders could be passed on the petitioner's representation. It is also noted that the direction issued by this Court was not in the nature of an adjudicatory or statutory exercise of power, but only to extend legal assistance to the petitioner to the extent possible. Despite best efforts, in the absence of cooperation from the other side, no further progress could be made, and the same has been placed on record by way of written remarks dated 02.04.2026.

¶25

5 . In a similar circumstance, this Court, by order dated 18.02.2026 in Contempt Petition (MD) No.221 of 2026 [U.Suresh vs. A.K.Mehbub Alikhan, The Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Ramanathapuram and another], has held that such directions cannot be enforced through the Legal Services Authority and accordingly, closed the contempt petition. This Court is of the same view in the present case.

¶26

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶27

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

¶28

6

¶29

Cont.P.(MD)No.197 of 2026

¶30