Madras High Court
S.Sugumar vs P.Raja on 22 January, 2021
Cont.P.No.1050 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
Cont.P.No.1050 of 2020
S.Sugumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
P.Raja,
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Kilpauk Range,
Chennai 10. ... Respondent
Prayer: This Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court
Act, to issue summon and punish the respondent for his act of contempt
of Court for deliberately disobeyed the order dated 13.12.2019 in
Crl.O.P.No.33640 of 2019 by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balaji
For Defendant : Mr.Aari Arugmugam
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Cont.P.No.1050 of 2020
ORDER
This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner stating
that the respondent has not obeyed the order passed by this Court in
Crl.O.P.No.33640 of 2019 dated 13.12.2019. Subsequent to the passing
of the said order, the petitioner herein has filed Contempt Petition in
Cont.P.No.641 of 2020. In the said petition, this Court by the order
dated 31.08.2020 has observed that the respondent has passed an order
on 28.08.2020 on the representation of the petitioner and hence, the
respondent has not committed any contempt. Further, the respondent
was directed to serve a copy of the order passed by the respondent on
the representation of the petitioner forthwith. A liberty was also given
to the petitioner to challenge the said order in the manner known to
law, if so advised.
2. In the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner at Page
No.43 the petitioner has enclosed a copy of the communication sent by
the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Cont.P.No.1050 of 2020
petitioner dated 31.08.2020. In the said communication, the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk, Chennai-10, has stated that the
representation of the petitioner was considered and since number of
cases are pending against the petitioner, his name cannot be deleted
from the history sheet.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
this Court, by the order dated 13.12.2019 has directed the respondent to
consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2019 in
accordance with the guidelines issued by this Court in Sabari @
Sabarigiri Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Annanagar (L & O)
Range, Madurai and others reported in (2018) 4 MLJ (Crl) 584, but
the respondent has not followed the guidelines issued by this Court in
the aforesaid judgment. He further submitted that when the Contempt
Petition in Cont.P.No.641 of 2020 came up for hearing before this
Court on 31.08.2020, the respondent submitted that the petitioner's
representation was considered and the same was disposed of on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Cont.P.No.1050 of 2020
28.08.2020 itself but, in the communication sent by the respondent, the
date has been mentioned as 31.08.2020 and hence, the submission
made by the respondent before this Court on 31.08.2020 is false.
4. The letter dated 31.08.2020 is only a communication. In the
said communication, it is not stated that when the order was passed on
the petitioner's representation. It appears that the said communication
was sent as per the directions of this Court dated 31.08.2020.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the respondent has made a false representation before this Court that on
28.08.2020 itself the petitioner's representation was disposed of cannot
be accepted.
5. As already pointed out that this Court while disposing of
the Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.641 of 2020 has categorically held
that a liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by
the respondent in the manner known to law, if so advised. Therefore, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Cont.P.No.1050 of 2020
the petitioner feels that the respondent has not passed the order by
following guidelines issued by this Court in Sabari @ Sabarigiri Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Annanagar (L & O) Range,
Madurai and others, (2018) 4 MLJ (Crl) 584, it is open to the
petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
Therefore, this Contempt Petition is misconceived and accordingly
dismissed.
22.01.2021
Index:Yes/No
dna
To
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Kilpauk Range,
Chennai 10.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Cont.P.No.1050 of 2020
P.RAJAMANICKAM, J.
dna
Cont.P.No.1050 of 2020
22.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Cont.P.No.1050 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
