Madras High Court
D.Baskarapandian vs J.Janarthanan on 1 February, 2022
L.P.A.No.2 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
L.P.A.No.2 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.1282 of 2022
D.Baskarapandian, I.A.S.,
District Collector,
Collectorate, Ranipet District. .. Appellant
Vs.
J.Janarthanan .. Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 23.12.2021 in Contempt Petition No.1313 of 2021.
For Appellant .. Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar,
Spl. Govt. Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 23
December 2021 recorded on Contempt Petition No. 1313 of 2021,
which reads as under:
“Issue Statutory Notice to the respondent.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.P.A.No.2 of 2022
2. Learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant/
District Collector, Ranipet has submitted that the order passed by
learned single Judge, in substance is the final order, so far prima
facie view is taken against the present appellant, and therefore this
appeal would be maintainable. It is further submitted that the
appellant needs to be protected against the ordeal of facing
contempt proceedings, which is instituted after counter was filed in
response to the contempt petition filed by the original writ
petitioner.
3. Learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant
has relied on the decisions in (i)Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank
Ltd., and Others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and Others ((2006) 5 SCC
399), (ii)Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare
Association (2) Vs. S.C.Sekar and Others ((2009) 2 SCC 784) and
(iii) P.Vimal and Another Vs. M.Kannan and Others (2019 SCC
Online Mad 30384) to contend that not only this appeal is
maintainable, even on merits interference is required in the
impugned order. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained and
impugned order dated 23.12.2021 be interfered with.
4. Before the arguments of learned advocate for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.P.A.No.2 of 2022
appellant are considered, it is noted that, submission was made by
the Registry before us on administrative side whether to treat this
appeal as maintainable or not and whether it should be registered
or not. It would not be fair to decide such issues sitting in
Chambers. With a view to see that the appellant gets fair hearing,
the appeal was ordered to be listed. That is how this appeal is
notified for hearing today. The registration of this appeal being
pursuant to the direction given by us in the above noted
circumstances, this appeal need not be treated as having been
registered by the Registry as its administrative function, treating it
to be maintainable. It is under these circumstances, we have heard
learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant both - on
maintainability and on merits.
5. The issue before this Court is, whether the issuance of
statutory notice vide order dated 23.12.2021 calls for any
interference. For this purpose, it needs to be seen, whether this
appeal needs to be entertained at all. Net result is, either on
maintainability or on merits, if this appeal is not to be entertained,
considering the fact that further proceedings before learned Single
Judge would get obstructed, in the peculiar facts of the case,
without going into the question of maintainability of this appeal,
we have heard learned Special Government Pleader for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.P.A.No.2 of 2022
appellant on merits and have considered the same.
6. Without pronouncing anything on the points :- whether
the impugned order quoted above can be said to be final judgment
qua which appeal would be maintainable, and further whether the
issuance of notice under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act would be appealable invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
Act, on merits we find that, when the original writ petitioner
complained about non-compliance of the final order dated
10.02.2020 in W.P. No.3148 of 2020, the process undertaken by
learned single Judge need not be interfered with, only on the
issuance of statutory notice.
7. While recording as above, we also note that the learned
Special Government Pleader has also submitted that, in response
to the contempt petition, counter was also filed and after taking
into consideration the contents of the said counter, statutory notice
is issued and now, except to face the contempt proceedings there
is no other option left to the appellant and therefore this appeal is
filed. In this regard, we note that, expressing any opinion by us
qua the defence of the appellant which is available to him in
contempt proceedings, would only prejudice either of the parties
and therefore the same need not be done. When learned single
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.P.A.No.2 of 2022
Judge has ordered issuance of statutory notice, the same,
according to us, can not be said to be any error, much less an error
apparent on the face of record, which may call for interference in
this intra-court appeal.
8. While recording as above, we again clarify that,
dismissal of this appeal is not on maintainability but is on merits. It
is also clarified that, whether the appeal against such an order is
maintainable or not, we have not given any final judgment and
that issue may be addressed in an appropriate case, as and when
required.
9. So far the decisions relied by learned advocate for the
appellant are concerned, the same can be grouped under two
heads. First on maintainability and the second on merits. Since this
appeal is not disposed of as 'not maintainable' the first group of
decisions need not be discussed. So far the authorities on merits
are concerned, as noted above, the impugned order records only
issuance of statutory notice and as held above, it can not be said to
be error much less error apparent on the face of record. For this
reason, those authorities would also not help the appellant. Dealing
with those authorities will only add to the difficulties in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.P.A.No.2 of 2022
proceedings before learned Single Judge, which we do not intend to
do.
10. With the above observations, this appeal is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U.J.) (S.S.K.J.)
01.02.2022
Index:Yes/No
mmi/1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.P.A.No.2 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
L.P.A.No.2 of 2022
01.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
