D.Nagarajan v. M.Kamalakannan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.04.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN Cont. Petition No.1670 of 2021 D. Nagarajan Petitioner v Mr. M. Kamalakannan Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies Cheyyar Circle Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Labour & Employment Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 Respondents Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 29.06.2021 passed in W.P. No.2050 of 2015. For petitioner Mrs. R. Hemalatha for Mr. C. Prakasam For R1 Mr. M.S. Palanisamy For R2 Mr. V. Arun, Addl. Adv. General assisted by Mrs. E. Ranganayaki Addl. Govt. Pleader

ORDER

This contempt petition has been filed seeking to punish the respondents for the alleged noncompliance of the order dated 29.06.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. No.2050 of 2015.

Today, when this contempt petition was taken up for hearing, it was represented by Mrs. R. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner that she has no instructions as regards compliance or otherwise of the aforesaid order.

In a riposte, Mr. V. Arun, learned Additional Advocate General submitted a copy of the proceedings dated 13.02.2023 of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies addressed to the Sub Registrar of Cooperative Societies directing the latter to reinstate the petitioner in service; a copy of the proceedings dated 16.02.2023 of the Sub Registrar of Cooperatives, ordering reinstatement of the petitioner and the joining letter dated 17.02.2023 addressed by the petitioner to the Sub Registrar of Cooperatives, in support of his submission that the order of this Court has been duly complied with.

Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent has been unnecessarily dragged into this contempt proceedings when the Management is not at all a party.

Since as per the aforesaid proceedings submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, it is limpid that the order of this Court has been complied with, this Court is not inclined to delve into the aforesaid submission of Mr. M.S. Palanisamy. However, this Court makes it clear that the Management ought to have been impleaded as a party in the contempt proceedings.

In the result, this contempt petition stands closed. 25.04.2023 cad

S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.

cad 25.04.2023