K.Rathinam v. Mr.Yuvaraj

2025:MHC:894

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Contempt Petition No. 2184 of 2024 K. Rathinam ..Petitioner Vs.

Mr. Yuvaraj, Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, TANGEDCO, Yerakadu, Salem District.

..Respondent Prayer:

Contempt Petition under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ro punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order dated 22.02.2024 in W.P. No. 4261 of 2024.

For Petitioner ::

Mr.K. Prabhakaran For Respondent ::

Ms. Sindhuzaa for Mr.I. Syed Sibghatullah, Standing Counsel Mr. V. Nithyanandam (for R4 in W.P)

O R D E R

Read this order in continuation of and in conjunction with the order dated 19.02.2025, which is extracted below:

'Mr.Syed, learned Standing Counsel for the TANGEDCO, accedes to the position that the direction under order dated 22.02.2024 has not been complied. He would however explain the same saying that three summons have been issued only to R4, who has not co-operated in the matter. 1\4

2. Since there is a direction as early as on 22.02.2024 to hear the petitioner, R3, R4 as well as others, who may be necessary for proper adjudication of the representation and dispose the same within six weeks, that direction ought to have been complied with. Hence inaction on the part of the TANGEDCO clearly reveals rank contempt.

3. A final opportunity is given to them to ensure that orders are passed within a period of four weeks from today in accordance with law and in compiance with the directions issued under order dated 22.02.2024.

4. List under the caption 'to report compliance' on 21.03.2025.' 2.

Today, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO would submit that directions under order dated 22.02.2024 have been complied with and from order dated 18.03.2025, it is evident that electricity connection to the 4th respondent in the writ petition has been disconnected.

3.

However, Mr.V. Nithyanandam, learned counsel claiming to represent the 4th respondent in the writ petition would submit that the 4th respondent is inconveniened by the disconnection of electricity. 4.

It is seen that the 4th respondent was given an opportunity to appear before the officer concerned by way issuance of three notices dated 15.03.2024, 20.03.2024 and 22.03.2024, which are said to have been received by the 4th respondent in the writ petition despite which he had not appeared. It is hence that order dated 18.03.2025 came to be passed by TANGEDCO recording the disconnection of electricity supply to the 4th respondent in the presence of the watchman of that site.

2\4

5.

Photographs circulated by learned Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO indicates that there is only a small shed on site with a board. According to TANGEDCO, there is no other building in the property though Mr.V. Nithyanandam states that there is an orphanage. This is however disputed question of fact and in the light of the fact that the directions under order dated 22.02.2024 have been complied with, recording the same, the contempt petition stands closed.

21.03.2025 Index: Yes/No nv 3\4

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

nv Cont.P. No. 2184 of 2024 21.03.2025 4\4