Disposed¶31

P.Tamilselvi v. K.J.Praveenkumar IAS

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – S.11 – wilful disobedience of earlier writ order

Madras HC25 Mar 2026CONT P(MD)/450/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition closed without punishment; Section 11, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; wilful disobedience of order dated 19.09.2019 in W.P(MD)No.14779 of 2014; dispossession alleged on 08.01.2026; contempt jurisdiction declined owing to disputed questions of residence and possession; petitioner's husband a Deputy Superintendent of Police; liberty to approach jurisdictional civil court; Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk; District Collector and District Revenue Officer, Madurai; G.R. Swaminathan, J.; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; decided 25.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to move the jurisdictional civil Court for appropriate relief; the Contempt Petition was closed without exercising the contempt jurisdiction. ¶31

P.Tamilselvi Vs K.J.Praveenkumar IAS — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to move the jurisdictional civil Court for appropriate relief; the Contempt Petition was closed without exercising the contempt jurisdiction.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the contempt jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised against the officials for deliberate and wilful disobedience, in implementation of the order made in W.P(MD)No.14779 of 2014 dated 19.09.2019, following the petitioner's alleged dispossession on 08.01.2026.

¶16

Court's answer

The Court recorded that it had been under the impression the petitioner was an underdog deserving protection, but it is admitted by the petitioner's counsel that her husband was a Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the respondents categorically stated that she is permanently residing in Umachikulam and never resided in the petition mentioned property.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since several factual disputes have arisen, this is not a case in which the contempt jurisdiction of the Court deserves to be exercised.

¶28

Key takeaways

Granting liberty to the petitioner to move the jurisdictional civil Court for appropriate relief, the Contempt Petition was closed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — S.11 — wilful disobedience of earlier writ order — Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (G.R. Swaminathan, J.) — Petitioner alleged she was dispossessed on 08.01.2026 contrary to the order dated 19.09.2019 in W.P(MD)No.14779 of 2014, wherein the authorities had merely been directed to adopt due process of law. Noting that the petitioner's husband was a Deputy Superintendent of Police, that the respondents categorically asserted she permanently resides in Umachikulam and never resided in the petition-mentioned property, and that several factual disputes had arisen, the Court held that the contempt jurisdiction did not deserve exercise. The Contempt Petition was closed, granting the petitioner liberty to move the jurisdictional civil Court for appropriate relief.

¶1

Cont P(MD)No.450 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Cont P(MD)No.450 of 2026

¶6

¶7

W.P(MD)No.14779 of 2014

¶8

P.Tamilselvi

¶9

... Petitioner / Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.K.J.Praveenkumar, I.A.S.,

¶12

District Collector, Madurai District,

¶13

Madurai.

¶14

2.K.Anbalagan, District Revenue Officer, Madurai.

¶15

3.Manesh Kumar, Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai. ... Contemnors / Respondents 1 to 3

¶16

Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the Contemnors / Respondents herein for the deliberate and willful disobedience in implementation of the order made in W.P(MD)No.14779 of 2014 dated 19.09.2019.

¶17

1/4

¶18

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

¶19

Cont P(MD)No.450 of 2026

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinodh Government Advocate

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard both sides.

¶23

2.The petitioner herein filed W.P(MD)No.14779 of 2014 to forbear the authorities from dispossessing her. The writ petition was disposed of by me on 19.09.2019 directing the authorities to adopt due process of law. I gave a finding that the writ petitioner appeared to be in possession of the petition mentioned property. The petitioner has filed the contempt petition alleging that on 08.01.2026, she was dispossessed .

¶24

3.I was under impression that the petitioner was an underdog and that she has to be given some kind of protection by this Court. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's husband was a Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is further categorically stated by the respondents that the petitioner is permanently residing in Umachikulam and that she never resided in the petition mentioned property. It is open to the petitioner to establish her claim in

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

Cont P(MD)No.450 of 2026

¶28

the manner known to law. This is not a case in which the contempt jurisdiction of this Court deserves to be exercised since several factual

¶29

disputes have arisen.

¶30