Madras High Court
Mr.Vijayakumar vs Murugathal on 10 October, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2025:MHC:2351
Cont.A.No.24 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.24 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.12350 of 2025
Mr.Vijayakumar,
Village Administrative Officer,
Vellalur Village Administrative Officer Office,
Vellalur, Coimbatore – 641 111. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Murugathal
2.Mrs.Shri Malathi,
The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Coimbatore District Collectorate Complex,
Coimbatore – 641 105.
3.Mr.A.Sathyan, Tahsildar,
Madukkarai,
Madukkarai Taluk Office,
Coimbatore – 641 105. ... Respondents
[R2 & R3 have given up vide Court's order dated 27.06.2025 (recorded)
in Cont.A.No.24 of 2025 by MSRJ & VLNJ]
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
Cont.A.No.24 of 2025
Prayer: Contempt Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, praying to set aside the order passed in Cont.P.No.3064
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 R1 : Mr.S.Lakshminarayanan
For R2 & R3 : Given up
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH, J.
This Contempt Appeal arises out of an order passed in Contempt
Petition No.3064 of 2024 dated 28.04.2025, wherein the learned Single
Judge had found the contemnors 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
first respondent herein/petitioner in the Contempt Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
2. The aforesaid Contempt Petition arises out of an order passed in
W.P.No.501 of 2024 dated 10.01.2024. The grievance of the writ
petitioner is that his representation given before the Revenue Authorities
seeking not to grant E-Patta to the sixth respondent therein 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
10.01.2024, had directed the concerned respondents therein to consider the
writ petitioner's representation, within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the Writ Order. Alleging disobedience of this
order, the Contempt Petition came to be filed. The contemnor in
Cont.P.No.3064 of 2024 is the Village Administrative Officer, who has
filed this Contempt Appeal.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellant herein submitted that the Special Tahsildar had complied with
the order passed in the Writ Petition by considering the representation of
the first respondent herein, conducting an inquiry and thereafter rejecting
the request on 12.02.2025. He further submitted that he had filed a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
compliance report before the learned Single Judge in Cont.P.No.3064 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 affidavits
filed by the individual contemnors were not satisfactory to the Court, since
all of them have similar overt acts. The learned Single Judge had rejected
the explanation offered by the contemnors that the delay in complying
with the Court's order was due to the announcements and conduct of
Parliamentary General Elections 2024, for which the respondents were
assigned with various election duties. According to the learned Single
Judge, the order was passed way back on 10.01.2024 and the elections
were held on 19.04.2024 and even assuming that they were engaged in the
election duties, the same could be only upto 10.09.2024, whereas the final
order came to be passed only on 12.02.2025. Though the specific
direction in the Writ Petition was to conclude within 2 months, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
view that the contemnors have committed civil contempt and accordingly,
punished them under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, as
detailed above.
5. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner therein had given a
representation to the Revenue Authorities, not to grant E-Patta to the sixth
respondent therein. Such a representation could be effectively considered
only by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Coimbatore and
the Tahsildar, Madukkarai Taluk Office, Coimbatore, who were already
impleaded as the respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition. The order
passed in the Writ Petition was a direction to the respondents 1 and 2,
including the third respondent who is the Village Administrative
Officer/appellant herein, to consider the representation seeking to refrain
from issuing E-Patta to the sixth respondent. The Revenue Authorities,
who may be responsible for considering such a representation, would only
be the respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition and the Village
Administrative Officer/third respondent in the Writ Petition will have no
authority or role in considering the writ petitioner's representation. Thus,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
initiating contempt proceedings against the Village Administrative Officer
for alleged violation of the Writ Court's order, will not be justifiable, since
by no stretch of imagination will the Village Administrative Officer have
the authority to deny grant of E-Patta to the private respondents.
6. Incidentally, the Contempt Petition came to be filed against the
Special Tahsildar and the Tahsildar in Cont.P.No.3064 of 2024 for
violation of the order passed in W.P.No.501 of 2024. The learned Single
Judge, by an order dated 28.04.2025 passed in Cont.P.No.3064 of 2024,
had found both the Tahsildar and the Special Tahsildar, apart from the
Village Administrative Officer/appellant herein, to be guilty of civil
contempt and had also punished them. When the order in the Contempt
Petition was challenged before us in Cont.A.Nos.21 & 22 of 2025, this
Bench had confirmed the recording of wilful disobedience and had
modified the sentence alone through our final order passed today.
7. In this background, we are of the affirmed view that when the
Village Administrative Officer lacks authority to consider the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
petitioner's representation, finding him guilty of civil contempt cannot be
sustained.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 passed in
Cont.P.No.3064 of 2024 is set aside. The Contempt Appeal stands
allowed and the appellant is purged from the contempt proceedings.
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 )
