Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

S.C.Thangaraju vs Mr.P.M.Basheer Ahmed I.A.S

Madras High Court|12 January, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to punish the respondents herein for their willful disobedience of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P(MD)No.5316 of 2013, dated 11.06.2013.
!For Petitioner(in both petitions) : M/s.Udhaya Law Associates ^For R1, R2 & R4(in both petitions) : Mr.S.Sathish Kumar Additional Government Pleader :COMMON ORDER These contempt petitions have been filed for punishing the respondents for having not obeyed the order of this Court made in W.P(MD)No.5316 of 2013, dated 11.06.2013.
2.It is represented that as against the order made in W.P(MD)No.5316 of 2013, dated 11.06.2013, a writ appeal was filed and the same was allowed.
3.Once a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has seized of the matter and has passed an order, the remedy open to the petitioners is to approach the Division Bench only for their grievance. In a similar circumstance, this Court vide order dated 25.02.2016 in Contempt Petition No.1329 of 2015, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kunhaymmed and others vs. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 359, has held as under:
?5.With reference to the three-Judge ruling in Kunhayammed case, a two-Judge Bench in the above case of K.K.Dineshan, in exercise of the powers under Articles 129, 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, has directed the complainant therein to approach the High Court. But, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioner in view of the finding of the Apex Court in paragraph 14 of K.K. Dineshan's case, which would read thus:
?14. We are mindful of settled law that the orders passed by the High Court would merge with the order passed by this Court. This Court has dismissed the appeal only and, therefore, it is the directions passed by the High Court which in fact have been allegedly disobeyed by the respondents/contemnors. In our considered view, it would be in the interest of justice and to lessen the burden of this Court in the current scenario, it would be appropriate to request the High Court to look into the grievance of the complainant, if a petition is filed before them inter alia bringing to their notice and knowledge that their orders and directions have been disobeyed. In our opinion, firstly, this exercise would be beneficial to the parties because they were before the High Court in the writ petition wherein the directions were issued and secondly, by entertaining the petitions of this nature wherein this Court has passed an order of dismissal simplicitor and the alleged contempt arises out of the order passed by the High Court, this Court would saddle the dockets with cases which could otherwise be effectively could be disposed of by the Courts below.?
6. Once the order passed in a Writ Petition gets merged with the order of the Writ Appeal, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a Contempt in the Writ Appeal and not in the Writ Petition, unless and until the Apex Court specifically directs the High Court to decide the issue. Thus, in view of the principle of Doctrine of Merger discussed above, this Contempt Petition cannot be adjudicated and hence, it is closed.?
4.Thus, taking note of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed's case, which has elaborately dealt with the principle of Doctrine of Merger and considering the fact that the Writ Appeal has been allowed, this Court is of the view that the Contempt Petition ought to be closed. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is closed. It is needless to state that it is open to the petitioners herein to agitate their rights before the Hon'ble Division Bench in accordance with law. No costs.
To
1. Mr.P.M.Basheer Ahmed I.A.S.
Principal Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal programme, Fort St.George, Chennai.
2. Mrs.D.Sabitha I.A.S.
Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai.
3. Mrs.S.Snehalatha, I.A.S.
The Principal Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlements) of Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018.
4. Mr.D.Beram B.Sc.
The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Sevalpatti, Trichy District.
.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

S.C.Thangaraju vs Mr.P.M.Basheer Ahmed I.A.S

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
12 January, 2017