Dismissed¶36

P. Mohan v. B. Ajith Reddy, and another

Madras HC4 Feb 2026SUB APPL/496/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC DB (Subramaniam & Kumarappan JJ.), SUB APPL 496/2023 in Cont.P.2221/2018, 04-02-2026: application to re-open closed contempt petition over eviction of encroachers (St. Thomas Mount Cantonment) dismissed; no wilful disobedience found; enforcement to be concluded expeditiously after disposal of encroachers' representations.

What did the court decide?

This Court does not find any wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court, since the respondents are continuously pursuing removal of the encroachments and the encroachers have exhausted the remedies available to them. ¶35

P. Mohan Vs B. Ajith Reddy, and another — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether there was any wilful disobedience by the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court, warranting re-opening of the closed Contempt Petition No. 2221 of 2018 for the purpose of punishing them.

¶35

Court's answer

¶35

Key takeaways

Clarificatory direction: after disposal of the representations submitted by the encroachers, the enforcement action shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras, Division Bench (S.M. Subramaniam and C. Kumarappan JJ.; order made by S.M. Subramaniam J.), SUB APPL No. 496 of 2023 in Cont.P. No. 2221 of 2018, dated 04-02-2026: Sub-application by P. Mohan seeking re-opening of the closed Contempt Petition — instituted for wilful disobedience of orders in W.P.No. 14244 of 2016 dated 13/04/2017, with the applicant alleging non-compliance with orders in W.P.No.7182 of 2020 etc., batch and the Court's order dated 20.09.2022 directing the Cantonment Board, St. Thomas Mount, to evict encroachers by following procedures — stands dismissed. The Court found no wilful disobedience: fifteen encroachers identified in the CEO's status report had already been removed; the remaining encroachers' appeal was rejected by the District Court; and C.R.P.Nos.2129, 2130, 2131, 2135 and 2119 of 2024 were disposed of on 09.01.2025 directing the Board to consider the encroachers' representations, which the Authorities are in the process of considering before continuing enforcement. The Additional Public Prosecutor reported that necessary police protection had been extended to the Authorities (the Deputy Commissioner of Police having been suo motu impleaded on 23.01.2019). The Court further directed that after disposal of the representations the enforcement action shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible. Dismissed without costs.

¶1

SUB APPL No. 496 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶8

SUB APPL No. 496 of 2023 IN CONT P NO. 2221 OF 2018

¶9

P. Mohan

¶10

S/o. M. Pinna Thevar, Residing At Flat No. 18/a, 1st Street, Dr. T M Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034.

¶11

..Applicant(s)

¶12

¶13

B. AJITH REDDY, and another The Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, North Parade Road, St.Thomas Mount Chennai 600 016.

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016. (Suo Motu impleaded as party respondent vide order dated 23.01.2019 by the Hon'ble Division Bench).

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

SUB APPL No. 496 of 2023

¶17

To re-open the case for the purpose of punishing the respondents/respondents, who have failed to comply the order of this Hon'ble High Court passed in W.P.No.7182 of 2020 etc., batch and Contempt Petition

¶18

Page1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

SUB APPL No. 496 of 2023

¶21

No.2221 of 2018, dated 20/09/2022.

¶22

CONT P No. 2221 of 2018

¶23

To punish the respondent herein for the willful disobedience of the orders of this honble court made in W.P.No. 14244 of 2016 dated 13/04/2017

¶24

For Applicant(s): M/s.V.Jayachandran For Respondent(s): Mr./a.Rexy Josephine Mary, for Mr.C.Mohan for M/s.King & Partridge For R1 Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R2

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶27

The present sub-application has been instituted to re-open the Contempt Petition which was closed.

¶28

2. This Court passed an order on 20.09.2022 directing the respondents to evict the encroachers by following the procedures. The status report filed by the Chief Executive Officer of Cantonment Board, St.Thomas Mount would show that fifteen encroachers were identified and those encroachers had already been removed. In respect of other encroachers an appeal was preferred and that was rejected by the District Court. Challenging the said order, a Civil Revision Petition came to be instituted before the High Court in C.R.P.Nos.2129, 2130, 2131, 2135 and 2119 of 2024. The Civil Revision Petitions were disposed of on 09.01.2025 directing the Cantonment Board Authorities to consider the representations submitted by those encroachers.

¶29

Page2 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

SUB APPL No. 496 of 2023

¶32

3. The learned counsel for the respondent Board would submit that the

¶33

Authorities are in the process of considering the representations and after disposal of the same, they will continue the enforcement action and remove the encroachments as per the orders of this Court dated 20.09.2022.

¶34

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2^nd respondent would submit that necessary police protection has been extended to the Authorities.

¶35

5. Since the respondents are continuously pursuing the matter for removal of encroachments and encroachers also have exhausted the remedies available to them, this Court does not find any wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court. However, it is made clear that after disposal of the representations, the enforcement action shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

¶36

6. Accordingly, this Sub-Application stands dismissed. No costs.

¶37

(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 04-02-2026

¶38

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶39

DSA

¶40

__________ Page3 of 5

¶41

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