Unknown vs Dhanalakshmi
2024 Latest Caselaw 4939 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4939 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 March, 2024

Madras High Court

Unknown vs Dhanalakshmi on 4 March, 2024

Author: D.Krishnakumar

Bench: D.Krishnakumar

                                                               Cont.A.(MD) SR No.85102 of 2023



                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED : 04.03.2024

                                                      CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
                                                      and
                                      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL


                                           Cont.A.(MD) SR No.85102 of 2023

                 1.K.Suresh Rengbabu

                 2.Mahalakshmi

                 3.P.Vasantha

                 4.R.Pandiammal

                 5.A.Pandiyammal

                 6.Pandiyammal

                 7.R.Pothumponnu

                 8.K.Kaleeswari

                 9.Vasantha

                 10.R.Maheswari

                 11.P.Meenakshi

                 12.N.Kavitha

                 13.K.Pandeeswari


                 ____________
                 Page 1 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                      Cont.A.(MD) SR No.85102 of 2023



                 14.Pandiselvi

                 15.Panchavarnam

                 16.N.Muthupandi

                 17.N.Shalini Devi

                 18.S.Jamuna

                 19.Muniyandi

                 20.Kuruvammal

                 21.Shanthi

                 22.Thayammal

                 23.M.Manimala

                 24.S.Kanagalakshmi

                 25.Valarmathi

                 26.R.Sanmugathai

                 27.K.Murugeshwari

                 28.Alagupandi

                 29.S.Saraswathi

                 30.G.Guruvu

                 31.M.Mariyammal

                 32.S.Arumugam



                 ____________
                 Page 2 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                              Cont.A.(MD) SR No.85102 of 2023



                 33.K.Meenakshi

                 34.S.Nallamuthu

                 35.Chithralekha

                 36.Sathiyavanimuthu

                 37.Palaniselvi

                 38.V.Vinodhini

                 39.Arumugam

                 40.Suba

                 41.V.Veeralakshmi

                 42.S.Karthika

                 43.S.Chitra

                 44.P.Eswari

                 45.K.Tamil Alagu                                               ... appellants
                                                      -vs-

                 Dhanalakshmi
                 Special Tahsildhar
                 (Land Acquisition)
                 Adi Dravidar Welfare Unit-1
                 Madurai-625 020                                                ... Respondents

                 PRAYER: Contempt Appeal filed under Section 19(1)(a) of Contempt Act read

                 with Article 215 of Constitution of India, against the order, dated 05.09.2023,

                 passed in Cont.P.(MD) No.1262 of 2023.

                 ____________
                 Page 3 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                     Cont.A.(MD) SR No.85102 of 2023



                                  For appellants    : Mr.Kannan Gurusamy



                                                          ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]

This matter is listed today under the caption "For Maintainability".

2. A contempt appeal is sought to be filed against the order of the

learned Single Judge, dated 05.09.2023, passed in Cont.P.(MD) No.1262 of

2023.

3. The proposed appellants have raised several grounds with

which we are not inclined to express any view, as we are called upon now to

decide the very maintainability of the present contempt appeal at the SR stage,

at the instance of the Registry.

4. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge

shows that the contempt petition filed by the proposed appellants came to be

closed by holding that no contempt has been committed on behalf of the

respondent.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.(MD) SR No.85102 of 2023

5. The Honourable Supreme Court in Sujitendra Nath Singh

Roy vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 2015 SCC 1831, has

categorically held that no appeal will lie against an interlocutory order or an

order dropping or refusing to initiate contempt proceedings. The relevant

portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:

“5. There is no caveat to the proposition of law that under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 an appeal lies before the Supreme Court only against such order of the High Court which imposes punishment for contempt and no appeal will lie against an interlocutory order or an order dropping or refusing to initiate contempt proceedings. This was clearly laid down in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy (1996) 4 SCC 411 : (AIR 1996 SC 2131). This view was also followed in several cases including in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (2006) 5 SCC 399 : (AIR 2006 SC 2190).

...

On a careful consideration of judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Manju Banerjee (supra) which has been followed in the impugned order, we are

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.(MD) SR No.85102 of 2023

unable to agree with the view that writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not maintainable when the Tribunal refuses to initiate a contempt proceeding. Such inference has been drawn by the Division Bench on the basis of some judgments of this Court such as in the case of D.N.Taneja v. Bhajan Lal (1988) 3 SCC 26. In those cases the order refusing to initiate proceeding had been passed by the High Court and not by a tribunal and, therefore, this Court observed that in a fit and proper case the aggrieved person who informed the court of the alleged act of contempt can approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Obviously in those cases there could be no occasion to observe that the aggrieved person can also approach the High Court under Article 226/227. The submission that because of similar powers of contempt vested in the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Act of 1997, the Tribunal ceases to be inferior to the High Court for exercise of writ jurisdiction is devoid of any substance because it ignores that High Courts have constitutional status and are vested with extraordinary writ jurisdiction whereas the Tribunal is only a creature of statute. Hence, in our considered view, in the case of of Manju Banerjee (supra) the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court does not lay down the law correctly that when the tribunal refuses to

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.(MD) SR No.85102 of 2023

initiate contempt proceeding, the aggrieved person has remedy only under Article 136 and not under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.”

6. We find no satisfactory explanation on the part of the proposed

appellants to maintain this contempt appeal as against the order passed by

the learned Single Judge closing the contempt petition on the ground that no

contempt has been committed by the respondent. Therefore, we find that the

appeal presented by the proposed appellants as against the order of the

learned Single Judge, dated 05.09.2023, passed in Cont.P.(MD) No.1262 of

2023, is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed as not

maintainable at the SR Stage.

                                                            [D.K.K., J.]          [P.D.B., J.]
                                                                      04.03.2024
                 NCC      : Yes / No
                 Index : Yes / No
                 Internet : Yes / No

                 krk




                 ____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.A.(MD) SR No.85102 of 2023

To: