Madras High Court
C.Sellamuthu vs The Advocate General Of Tamilnadu on 21 January, 2022
W.P.No.23642 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.23642 of 2018
C.Sellamuthu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Advocate General of Tamilnadu,
High Court, Chennai.
2.Vikram Kapoor,
The Chairman, TANGEDCO,
Annasalai, Chennai.
3.Manivanan,
The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Salem. ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to
call for the records of the first respondent herein in his proceedings in
contempt petition No.5 of 2018 dated 22.03.2018 and quash the same and
direct the respondent to give consent to the petitioner to file the criminal
contempt against the TANGEDCO before this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan
For R1 : Mr.R.ShunmugaSundaram
Advocate General assisted by
Ms.Shakeenaa, Government Advocate &
Mr.Vedha Bhagath Singh,
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
W.P.No.23642 of 2018
For R2 & R2 : Mr.Anand Gopalan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan
ORDER
I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned
Advocate General in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section
15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, whereby, he has sought for
consent to initiate contempt proceedings.
2.The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that though several
orders have been passed by the Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the respondent Court has not chosen to implement such
orders.
3.The definition of the terms Criminal Contempt under Section
2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, would relate to matters of
scandalising or lowering or tending or tend to lower the authority of
Court or interference to any judicial proceeding or administration of
justice. Disobedience of Courts orders cannot be termed as Criminal
Contempt when the definition is strictly applied.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23642 of 2018
4.The Advocate General has also relied upon the ingredients of
the Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and thereby, rejected the
petitioner's application as not maintainable.
5.The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner also has no relevance since as rightly pointed out by the
Advocate General. The decision reported in (2008) 1 SCC 560 - Udyami
Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another Vs State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others relates to repeated suppression of facts before
the Court and the other judgment reported in (1991) 1 SCC 619- Grih
Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union Vs. Union of India and Others relates
to filing of repeated writ petitions by petitioners therein.
6.As such there are no merits in the present writ petition, this
Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. No costs.
21.01.2022
Dua
Internet:Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23642 of 2018
M.S.RAMESH, J.
Dua
To
1.The Advocate General of Tamilnadu,
High Court, Chennai.
2.Vikram Kapoor,
The Chairman,
TANGEDCO,
Annasalai, Chennai.
3.Manivanan,
The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Salem.
W.P.No.23642 of 2018
21.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
