Madras High Court
Mr.Venkatramanan vs P.Shankar on 10 October, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2025:MHC:2354
Cont.A.No.23 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 20.08.2025
Pronounced on 10.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Cont.A.No.23 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.12348 of 2025
Mr.Venkatramanan,
The Tahsildar,
Tiruporur,
Chengalpet District. ... Appellant
Vs.
P.Shankar ... Respondent
Prayer: Contempt Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, praying to set aside the order passed in Cont.P.No.3235
of 2024 dated 28.04.2025 and allow this Contempt Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Ramanlaal,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.D.Krishnamoorthy
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
Cont.A.No.23 of 2025
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH, J.
This Contempt Appeal arises out of an order passed in Contempt
Petition No.3235 of 2024 dated 28.04.2025, wherein the learned Single
Judge had found the contemnor of having committed 'civil contempt' and
sentenced the appellant herein to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one month and to pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the
respondent herein/petitioner in the Contempt Petition.
2. The aforesaid Contempt Petition arises out of an order passed in
W.P.No.4964 of 2024 dated 28.02.2024. The grievance of the writ
petitioner is that his representation given before the Revenue Authorities
seeking for issuance of separate Patta in his favour, has not been
considered and therefore, he sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus.
The learned Single Judge, while passing final order in the Writ Petition on
28.02.2024, had directed the appellant herein/first respondent therein to
consider the writ petitioner's representation, within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of the Writ Order. Alleging
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
disobedience of this order, the Contempt Petition came to be filed. The
contemnor in Cont.P.No.3235 of 2024 is the Tahsildar, who has filed this
Contempt Appeal.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellant herein submitted that the incumbent Tahsildar had complied with
the order passed in the Writ Petition by considering the representation of
the respondent herein, conducting an inquiry in which the respondent did
not participate and thereafter rejected the request on 13.02.2025. He
further submitted that he had filed a compliance report before the learned
Single Judge in Cont.P.No.3235 of 2024 and had also tendered an
unconditional apology before the Court without any reservation, for any
act of commission or omission.
4. The learned Single Judge had recorded that the counter affidavit
filed by the contemnor was not satisfactory to the Court and rejected the
contention of the contemnor that he was transferred and relieved from the
post on 21.12.2024 and therefore, the delay had occurred. On the other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
hand, the contemnor had failed to give any satisfactory reason as to why
the order was not complied within eight weeks prior to 21.12.2024.
Though the specific direction in the Writ Petition was to conclude within
eight weeks, the final order came to be passed after much delay, causing
serious prejudice to the writ petitioner. In this background, the learned
Single Judge was of the view that the contemnor has committed civil
contempt and accordingly, punished him under Section 12 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, as detailed above.
5. In our view, the learned Single Judge had rightly arrived at such a
decision and hence, no interference is required to the findings.
6. With regard to the quantum of punishment, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in 'Pushpaben and another Vs. Narandas V.Badiani and another'
reported in AIR 1979 SC 1536, had, while interpreting Section 12(3) of
the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, held that there is no room for doubt that
in normal circumstance, a sentence of fine should be imposed. However,
the Act has conferred special powers on the Court to award punishment, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
the ends of justice so require. By observing so, it held that the Court must
properly apply its mind and give special reasons that a sentence of
imprisonment alone is called for in a particular situation. As per the said
decision, while imprisonment is an exception, fine is the general rule.
7. In the present case, the Contempt Court has not recorded any
special reasons, as to why imprisonment was awarded together with the
compensation amount. In our view, the Contempt Court could have
restricted the punishment to fine alone, as contemplated under Section 12
of the Contempt of Courts Act, since no such reasons have been assigned
for the sentence of imprisonment.
8. On this view, we are inclined to interfere with the order of the
learned Singe Judge made in the Contempt Petition, insofar as it sentences
the appellant herein to one month simple imprisonment.
9. Accordingly, paragraph No.29 of the impugned order dated
28.04.2025 in Cont.P.No.3235 of 2024, insofar as it sentences the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, is set aside. All
other observations and findings in the impugned order are confirmed.
10. The Contempt Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]
10.10.2025
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Internet: Yes
Neutral Citation: Yes
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Sni
judgment made in
10.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
