T.Gopalakrishnan v. Govindraj I.A.S
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN 1.
T.Gopalakrishnan M.Nachimuthu P.Rangasamy R.Thirumurthy D.Sureshkumar 6.
K.Murugesan 7.
R.Subramanian 8.
M.Arumugam 9.
R.Vellaiangiri 10.
N.Ammasai 11.
S.N.Rajendran 12.
J.Peter 13.
K.M.Devaraj 14.
N.Easwaramurthy 15.
A.Rahamadulla 16.
M.Karthikeyan 17.
N.S.Govindarajan 18.
O.S.Loganathan 19.
N.Raghupathy 20.
D.Parthiban 21.
T.John Christopher 22.
R.Mariya Steepan ... Petitioners vs.
1.
Govindaraj, I.A.S., District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tirupur.
Page No.1 of 5
Paul Raj, Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat (V.P), Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
Manivannan, Block Development Officer, Block Panchayat (B.P), Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
Sampath, Project Director (Rural Development), Town Panchayat, Tiruppur District.
K.V.Ramadevei, District Treasury Officer, Tiruppur.
... Respondents Contempt Petition filed under Order 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to punish the Respondents herein for willfully disobeying the order of this Court in W.P.No.26103 of 2010, dated 26.11.2010. For Petitioners :
Mr.Sedhu Madhavan for Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents :
Mr.M.Elumalai, Addl. Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Contempt Petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.26103 of 2010. Page No.2 of 5
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it is represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents that, the order under contempt was challenged in W.A.No.2073 of 2013 and the same was allowed in favour of the Government by a Division Bench of this Court vide common judgment dated 08.07.2015. In view of the submissions of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents, Contempt will not lie against the order passed in W.P.No.26103 of 2010. In the case of Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2000 (6) SCC 359), the principle of Doctrine of Merger has been widely discussed. With reference to the three-Judge ruling in Kunhayammed case and yet another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dineshan, K.K. vs. R.K.
Singh reported in (2014) 16 SCC 88, this Court is of the view that, 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. Page No.
Thus, in view of the principle of Doctrine of Merger discussed above, the present Contempt Petition cannot be adjudicated and hence, it is closed. However, it is open to the Petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law.
SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) aeb/jas //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2020. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
SMI/06/11/2020 To 1.
The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tirupur.
The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat (V.P), Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
The Block Development Officer, Block Panchayat (B.P), Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
Page No.4 of 5
The Project Director (Rural Development), Town Panchayat, Tiruppur District.
The District Treasury Officer, Tiruppur.
Page No.5 of 5