Madras High Court
R.Vijayakumar vs Mr.B.Murugesh on 30 March, 2023
Cont.P.No.447 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
Contempt Petition No.447 of 2023
R.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner
Vs
Mr.B.Murugesh, I.A.S.,
The District Collector,
Office of the District Collectorate,
Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 praying to punish the respondent for wilful disobeying the order
passed by this Court in W.P.No.15721 of 2021 dated 29.07.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivasubramanian
For Respondent : Dr.T.Seenivasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner in the contempt petition filed a writ petition for
issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and
dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 07.04.2021 in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.447 of 2023
light of a judgment of this Court in Rev.Apln.No.88 of 2012 dated
18.07.2012. The said writ petition was disposed by this Court, by order
dated 29.07.2021, in the following lines:
“6.This Court, considering the limited scope of prayer
sought for by the petitioner and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the petitioner-s representation or
the case projected by him in this writ petition, directs the
respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's
representation dated 07.04.2011 in the light of the order
passed in the Review Petition No.88/2011 dated 18.07.2012
and on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to
the petitioner herein.”
2. In the representation dated 07.04.2021, the petitioner requested
for compassionate appointment on the ground that his father Raju,
working as Village Assistant, died on 20.03.2000 while he was in service
and that the petitioner's application was earlier rejected on the ground
that his brother by name Selvakumar was in Government Service. He
further stated that he preferred a review application as against the order
dismissing his earlier writ petition seeking compassionate appointment. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.447 of 2023
is further stated that the previous order of District Collector dated
02.09.2010 should be cancelled and that he should be given employment.
Stating that the representation was not considered, he approached this
Court earlier by filing a writ petition.
3. Pursuant to the order of this Court in the writ petition filed by
the petitioner, the respondent viz., District Collector, Tiruvannamalai
District, by Proceedings dated 13.03.2023, has rejected the representation
of the petitioner giving several reasons.
4. Considering the limited scope of the prayer in the contempt
petition, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the order
passed by the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai dated 13.03.2023. Since
this Court has granted only limited relief by directing the respondent to
consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders
on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks,
this Court finds no willful disobedience on the part of the respondent.
The delay is also explained by the District Collector in his further letter
addressed to the Government Pleader.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.447 of 2023
5. Having regard to the fact that the representation of the petitioner
has been duly considered in accordance with the directions of this Court,
this Court finds no merits in this contempt petition and hence, this
Contempt Petition is closed recording the aforesaid compliance.
30.03.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Sgl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.447 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
Sgl
Contempt Petition No.447 of 2023
30.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
