Madras High Court
Mrs.Shri Malathi vs Murugathal on 10 October, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2025:MHC:2352
Cont.A.No.22 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.22 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.12344 of 2025
Mrs.Shri Malathi,
The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Adi Dravidar Welfare,
Coimbatore District Collectorate Complex,
Coimbatore – 641 018. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Murugathal
2.Mr.A.Sathyan, Tahsildar,
Madukkarai,
Madukkarai Taluk Office,
Coimbatore – 641 105.
3.Mr.Vijayakumar,
Village Administrative Officer,
Vellalur Village Administrative
Officer Office, Vellalur,
Coimbatore – 641 111. ... Respondents
[R2 & R3 have given up (recorded) vide Court's order dated 27.06.2025 in
Cont.A.No.22 of 2025 by MSRJ & VLNJ]
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
Cont.A.No.22 of 2025
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.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
Special Tahsildar, who has filed this Contempt Appeal.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellant herein submitted that the appellant 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 compliance report
before the learned Single Judge in Cont.P.No.3064 of 2024 and had also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
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 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 view that the contemnors have
committed civil contempt and accordingly, punished them under Section 12
of the Contempt of Courts Act, as detailed above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 07:59:16 pm )
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, para 16 of the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 in
Cont.P.No.3064 of 2024, insofar as it sentences the 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 )
