Madras High Court
(Heard Through Vc) vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 4 January, 2021
W.P.No.20049 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.20049 of 2020
(Heard through VC)
S.Jubithabi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Prison.II) Department, Fort St.George,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Superintendent,
Special Prison for Women,
Salem.
3. The Accountant General (A&E),
DMS Compound, Teynampet,
Chennai-600 018. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent herein, namely, the Government of
Tamilnadu, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home (Prison.II) Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009, to
implement the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 11.04.2019 made in W.P.No.42
of 2015 within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Govinda Prasad
For Respondents : Mr.P.V.Selvakumar
Addl. Govt. Pleader
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2020
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition, seeking a
direction to the 1st respondent herein to implement the order of this Court
dated 11.04.2019 made in W.P.No.42 of 2015 in a time bound manner.
2. Mr.P.V.Selvakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes
notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ
petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. According to the Petitioners, she was initially appointed as Female
Escort Warder on daily wage basis on 31.12.1992 and after a long struggle, she
was subsequently appointed on regular basis as Female Grade-II Warder with
effect from 22.04.2009, pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 21.07.2010.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though she obtained a favourable
order from this Court on 11.04.2019 in W.P.No.42 of 2015 with regard to
regularization of her service with effect from 29.09.2000, till now, no order was
passed in compliance with the orders of this Court, despite sending a
representation dated 30.05.2019. Aggrieved by the wilful disobedience of the
orders of this Court, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this
Court with the above relief.
4. A bare reading of the relief sought for in this Writ Petition itself
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2020
discloses the fact that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and taking
note of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, contempt alone is maintainable
for non compliance of the orders of this Court and the properties of contemnor
can also be attached in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court in the case of A.Sachidanandam, Macneil and Magor Kilburn Group
Companies Employees' Union, Chennai vs. S.Srinivasan and others, reported
in 2011 (5) LLN 696 (DB) (Mad.). Though there is a limitation of one year
prescribed for invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts
Act to punish the contemnor, the said provision will apply only to a criminal
contempt and not to a civil contempt. If the powers of High Courts are
restricted, then High Courts will be a laughing stock amongst public and the
first person to make mockery of judiciary is the violator. The contemnor, who
disobeyed the orders of this Court will only enjoy the fruits of the litigation and
not the person, who has got a favourable order. When Execution proceedings
can be effected within twelve years, the powers of this Court cannot be
curtailed, contending that the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of
India are abridged by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, as the powers
under Constitution are supreme than the powers enumerated under the
Contempt of Courts Act.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Elumalai and Others vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2020
A.G.L.Irudayaraj and Others, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2214, has elaborately
discussed its powers under the provisions of Article 129 of the Constitution of
India to punish for the contempt, if the disobedience or breach continues, by
holding as under:
"The next question is whether for disobedience of the
order passed by this Court, the respondents/contemners are
liable to punishment? In this connection, we may refer to some
of the legal provisions. Article 129 of the Constitution declares
this Court (Supreme Court) to be "a Court of Record having all
the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for
the contempt of itself". Clause (c) of Section 94 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 enacts that in order to prevent the ends
of justice from being defeated, the Court may, commit the
person guilty of disobedience of an order of interim injunction
to civil prison and direct his property be attached and sold.
Rule 2A of Order XXXIX as inserted by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976) reads thus:
2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of
injunction- (1) In the case of disobedience of any
injunction granted or other order made under Page
3178 Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms
on which the injunction was granted or the order
made, the Court granting the injunction or making
the order, or any Court to which the suit or
proceeding is transferred, may order the property of
the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to
be attached, and may also order such person to be
detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding
three months, unless in the meantime the Court
directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain
in force for more than one year, at the end of which
time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the
property attached may be sold and out of the
proceeds, the Court may award such compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2020
as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the
balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto."
6. The question whether there is a wilful disobedience of the orders of
this Court or not can be gone into by the Court only in contempt proceedings, if
any such petition is moved by the petitioner and the Writ jurisdiction is not an
alternative forum for the petitioner to ask for implementation of the orders of
this Court dated 11.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.42 of 2015.
7. Hence, finding no merits in the Petition, the Writ Petition is ordered
to be dismissed. No costs.
04.01.2021
Index: Yes/no
Speaking order: Yes/No
ar
To:
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home (Prison.II) Department, Fort St.George,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Superintendent,
Special Prison for Women,
Salem.
3. The Accountant General (A&E),
DMS Compound, Teynampet,
Chennai-600 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20049 of 2020
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
ar
W.P.No.20049 of 2020
04.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
